A Geeky Viewpoint

• Domestically Studio's tend to receive 40 to 60% of the Domestic Box office, with the amount dependent on a Studio's standing, past history, and the movie's most likely take at the box office.  The Theater/chain, and distributor take the rest.   Internationally studio's tend to take as little as 10% in some markets and as much as 40% in others with a number about 25% for all international markets being somewhat average.  
• For a point of comparison Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle posted a profit of $275 M and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 around $50 M.

Tom Rothman

Amy Pascal

The former Chairperson of Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group, Amy Pascal stepped down after the disastrous Hack of Sony Pictures Entertainment group exposing the internal workings of SPE and her "dark side".      After stepping down Amy Pascal formed a new film studio, Pascal Pictures who signed a four year deal with Sony to develop Film and TV projects.    Pascal Studios is currently responsible for the Marvel IPs controlled by Sony including Spider-Man: Homecoming and Venom.

Amy Pascal, while Chairperson of Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group, signed an unprecedented deal with Marvel Studios allowing Peter Parker to appear in three Marvel Cinematic Movies as a crossover character and having Marvel Studios produce two standalone Peter Parker/Spider-man films while SPE would receive all Box Office Revenue from those two Spider-Man solo films.    Those five films are Captain America: Civil War, Spider-man: Homecoming, Avengers: Infinity War, Avengers 4 and Spider-man; Far from Home.   

Sony Universe of Marvel Characters

Sony has announced the are working on a shared Universe of the more than 900 Marvel Characters whose Live Action Film Rights they control.  Films in early stages of production in Morbious the Living Vampire, Kraven the Hunter, Silk, Black Cat, and Silver Sable.

Sony's Options

1) Renew the Agreement with Marvel Studios

2) End the Agreement with Marvel Studios

3) Sell the Rights to Marvel Studios

4) Expand the agreement putting the entire IP under Marvel Studios

5) Something else.

One of the More interesting movies on the list of movies in early stages of production is Silk.  Why
not a more well known female character from the "Spiderverse"  like Spider-Gwen (aka Spider-Woman), or Jessica Drew (aka Spider-Woman), or Mayday Parker (Spider-Girl)?

The first two are easy:

Spider-Gwen, Gwen Stacy is not a part of the primary, 616, story line.  The character is set in an alternative universe where Peter parker is killed and Gewn is bitten by the Spider.    Sony does not have the rights for a live action version of Spider-Gwen.

Jessica Drew is technically an Spider/Alien/Mutant depending on which of the four origin stories you want to go with.   In theory her rights are currently controlled by 20th Century Fox.   There is a potential that Marvel Studios also control the IP rights

Mayday Parker is a different story.  I have a theory but its only based on snippets of the Sony Hack.  The contract updated/signed in 2011 has a number of mandatory requirements for Peter Parker.   The contract spells out that he is a straight white student in either high-school or college.   May "Mayday" Parker is the daughter of Mary Jane Watson and Peter Parker.   Hard to explain where she comes from if Peter cannot be old enough to be her parents in Sony's Contract with Marvel.   

There is another interesting tidbit, a Chinese American actress named Tiffany Espensen has portrayed Cindy Moon in both Spider-Man: Homecoming and Avengers: Infinity War.

Is $50 Million in profit enough?

As of this morning, Wednesday October 3rd, the score on rottentomatoes.com for Venom was 27%.  The first thought that came to mind, why so high?   Honestly that's what popped into my head.

I have heard from people inside the industry that Sony was anticipating the movie to make just under $60 Million Domestically on opening weekend with a total domestic take of $120 to $130 Million. Which until yesterday is below what the box office predictors were suggesting.   The individual I talked with this morning however is worried that with such a negative score, coupled with confirmation of several rumors, the movie will have a hard time attracting non-core audience members to the theater, and that the core audience will only see the film once.

I am not sure if my brain was tuned out but alarm bells should have been going off way back in July when Studio estimates appeared with $60 and $130 million.     

When you look at a movie box office two numbers are important, the Opening Weekend (which is where studios make the most of their money) and multiplier (a movies legs).    A domestic movie opening at $65 Million and ends with a total domestic take of $176 it has a multiplier of 2.7.   That is considered a good Multiplier, not great, but close.   A movie that opens at $65 million and ends at $181 has a multiplier of 2.8 is almost great as 3.0 is consider great.   

A domestic box office of $60 million and a total domestic take of $120 Million has a multiplier of 2 and would be considered abysmal or bad.   The first two movies are Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor both of which opened with roughly a $65 million opening and multiplier of 2.7 to 2.8.  

For Marvel Films, not just films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but all Marvel films on Punisher Warzone ($4 M / $8 M), Elektra ($12 / $24) and Fantastic Four (2015) ($25 / $56) have the kind of multiplier we are seeing predicted by Sony.     Most Marvel films are in the 2.6 to 2.8 range.

What's more of an issue is that this film is being release in a very non-competitive time slot (early October) where it should have little competition for viewers over the next three weekends.  I was asleep at the wheel.

The other challenge for Venom is it's score on rottentomatoes.com, metacrtic, and other aggregate score web-sites.       On rottentomatos.com this morning it has a score of 27%, which means that only 27% of the reviewers scored the movie as a C+ (2.5 out 5 stars) or better.   Metacritic score, currently at 35, is a measure of how well the film scored with critics.   Scores of 81 or better are considered great, 61 to 80 are considered favorable, 41 to 60 mixed, and 20 to 40 unfavorable and below 20 just plan bad.   The people I talked to suggested that Sony was expecting a rottentomates.com score in the neighborhood of 55 to 60 and metacritic score in the 50 to 60 range.   Neither score is looking like it is possible today.

Where do studios get their estimates, test screenings.   You show the film to 300 random viewers and gauge their results.   In recent years Movie Studio test screening scores and Critical Reviews have become more aligned or in tune to one another.  Occasionally a movie with high test scores will get poor critical responses, The Mummy, and even more rarely a movie that does poorly with the test audience, School of Rock, will get a solid or good critical reception.   In general these scores now-a-days are fairly well aligned.  Venom scored in the mixed to positive range with test audiences and is now getting lower scores from critics.

During the spring of 2017 executives Universal Studios were cautiously optimistic about The Mummy, a reboot starring Tom Cruise the hoped to launch their Dark Universe.    The movie had done fairly well at test screenings they had an expectation of $50 to $60 million in the opening frame and multiplier of 2.7.     The movie had "momentum" in early May 2017 before a the first box-office web-site lowered their estimate based upon the negative reception of the final trailer.   The movies momentum and hype crashed and the movie project was only projected to take $39 Million in the final estimates, before taking a actual of of only $31 M.

This year the momentum for Venom has been building, even last week movie box-office predictors were seeing high social media numbers and excitement for the film before the breaks were applied right before the launch.  So Venom is not following the exact same path as The Mummy; its path is more aligned with The Amazing Spider-Man, another Sony Marvel film, where the wheels fell off basically as the movie launched.   It was projected to be in the $75 to $85 million range for its opening weekend and slid in at just $62 Million a 20% drop.

Last year Sony Pictures Entertainment [SPE] and Marvel Studios announced a blockbuster deal allowing Spider-Man and other characters from Spider-Verse to appear in Marvel Cinematic Universe as well as characters from the MCU to appear in SPE films and for the future live-action Spider-man films to be filmed by Marvel Studios while SPE retains distribution rights and funding the films. 

Even though that all sounds like a great deal, there are those at Sony who wonder if they gave up the house to save the car in the deal.    Here is how that argument works.

Under the terms of the IP that SPE controls there are a great number of villains (approximately 36) from Doctor Octopus, The Lizard, Electro, Green Goblin, Kraven the Hunter, Rhino, the Hobgoblin and so forth.   There are some compelling secondary characters including Aunt may, Jay Jonah Jameson, Harry Osborne, Gwen Stacey, Mary-Jane Watson amongst others.  

If you look at Peter Parker, aka Spider-Man, in other media, when the character is most compelling and audience friendly it usually involves Peter's interaction with another super-hero.

   The reason for this is it gives the writers a better outlet for Peter to express his problems.   Since no other super-hero has appeared in a Spider-Man film that automatically leads to the question, what other Super-Heroes does SPE control under the terms of the IP.   The answer is none.   Not Daredevil, Punisher, Ice-Man, Firestorm, Wolverine, Nova, Tigra, Power-Man, Spider-Girl, Silk or even Miles Morales.     The closest thing to a Super-Hero that SPE controls is the Black Cat.   This creates a situation where SPE's Spider-Man is virtually stuck on a hamster wheel telling variations of the same story. 

Spider-Man: Homecoming in theory allows SPE to do just that, with Robert Downey Jr reprising his role as Tony Stark/Iron Man with some sort of mentorship program between Iron Man and Spider-Man.    In that solution is the bigger problem, instead of multiple movies you still only have Spider-Man and 36 Villains.  They didn't get Miles Morales, Cindy Moon, Mayday Parker or Jessica Drew all of which are Spider-Verse characters in other media formats but not in SPE IP.  

Courtesy SPE

Courtesy Marvel Studios

In what many prognosticators predict will be a bad movie for superhero films in general, and sci-fi genre at Sony Picture Entertainment, Tom Rothman has been hired to replace Amy Pascal as chair of SPE.  

 

Tom Rothman is most known for his tenure as President of 20th Century Fox where his micromanagement of a number of their Marvel Properties is well documented.  

 

Those on the inside suggest he has been hired for one reason, to help SPE make hits on the cheap, something that Amy Pascal has been extremely unsuccessful at.       

 

His hiring also will bring rumors of a potential sale of the Spider-Man IP back to Marvel in the next 18 months or so.

Sony and 20th Century Fox have over the years had a solid working relationship as film studios, including several unwritten agreements to not step on one another toes or directly compete with one another on numerous projects and sharing of resources.   In the Marvel Universe Sony allowed 20th Century Fox to use Kingpin from the Spider-Man IP in their 2003 Daredevil Movie.   

The great Sony hack reviled that Sony was well versed on everything that 20th Century Fox was working on, and considering; including details on a potential X-Men - Fantastic Four crossover.

 

20th Century Fox does not have a good relationship with Disney or Marvel Studios, bad, contentious, ill-willed are probably much better words to describe their relationship.  

In 2012 Co-Chair Tom Rothman stepped down leaving Jim Gianopulos as Chair of 20th Century Fox.   Tom Rothman by all accounts was not a superhero kind of guy, the jury is kind of out on Jim.   However when George Lucas sold LucasFilm Studios to Disney in 2012 without even allowing 20th Century Fox to bid, needless to say Jim Gianopulos was not a happy camper.

In 2012 Marvel Studios (and Marvel Entertainment) were in discussions with 20th Century Fox on the return of the Fantastic Four IP to Marvel.   According to rumor at the last moment 20th Century Fox decided to move forwards with production of a reboot, Marvel Entertainment CEO Isaac Perlmutter went beyond ballistic to batshit crazy.    To this day their are no posters or pictures of the Fantastic Four in Marvel Entertainments Headquarters.

The rumors continued that Alan Fine,  President of Marvel Entertainment, read the script of the reboot and said something along the lines that "this is worse than The Amazing Spider-Man 2." 

A comparison of the box-office returns of The Avengers: Age of Ultron to The Fantastic Four will be telling.   It goes beyond which movie makes the most revenue, because that is a no brainer, but rather which one outperforms and which one underperforms.

A:AOU may have an outside chance to hit $1 Billion domestically, I am guessing somewhere in the neighborhood of $750 Million is more likely.    

The FF movie on the other hand is a complete wildcard.  It could be as high as $200 Million or as low as $85 Million with a fair bet that $150 Million is going to be pretty close. 

 

Where this comes into play is how much money the movies make in revenue for the individual studios.   Everything from Marvel Studios has turned out well so far, 20th Century Fox on the other hand is only batting .500.  
20th Century Fox is not investing big into Fantastic Four, reportedly around $100 Million in comparison Marvel Studios is investing $180 Million for Ant-Man.   To turn a profit domestically Fantastic Four needs to earn around $140 to $145 Million, that way any money earned overseas is all profit.   With a fair bet that $150 Million, that really doesn't leave any margin for error.  A rough formula suggests for every $1 less than $145 million the movie will need to earn $3 overseas.  Example if FF earns $120 Million ($25 M Short) it will need to make $75 Million overseas.  

You can be successful with a decent overseas revenue, see The Wolverine, unfortunately that is the exception not the rule.

The worst nightmare for 20th Century Fox is Fantastic Four earns $115 Million Domestically and $180 Million overseas.   While it sounds like a big number it barely makes enough to cover the expenses and not enough to finance the sequel in any way shape or form.

 

Another item to watch for is Fantastic Four is using OTOY for almost all of its VX (CGI).  OTOY is a cloud rendering system that in theory is 1/4 to 1/3 the cost of traditional VX.   The question is how well will the VX from OTOY be in comparison to traditional VX used by Marvel Studios.   In the trailer we have not seen many VX shots so as an audience we have no way of knowing, yet even Ant-Man has shown us multiple VX shots.   I'll just say it is not a good sign so far.

 

The audience reaction to the Fantastic Four will be another and probably the final key metric for the success of FF.    Initially fans of the 2005 FF film were okay with the film, scoring the film with a median score of 6 (on a 10 point scale).   After the release of the FF: Rise of the Silver Surfer the median score for the original dropped to a 5.   Fan reception below a 8 (The lowest score in MCU excluding Hulk standalone movies) is probably going to be considered a failure. 

 

I can hear it now: That's a lot of discussion on FF, why?

The FF is a reboot of a movie franchise that is not 10 years old so the comparisons to Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man are fairly natural or predictable.  With the failures of TASM people are going to want to know did 20th Century Fox learn from Sony's mistakes or not.
To me the answer is, well no, or probably not really.  20th Century Fox is telling an origin story over, trying to tell a coming of age story, and deviating from the accepted story line.
   
If you had seen Spider-Man (2002), you know any of the 500 times it was on TV before TASM (2012) was released than the rehash of the movie meant that 45 minutes or so could easily have been chopped out.  So far this month alone the 2005 Fantastic Four film is on TV 74 times.  
Marvel learned this from Hulk to The Incredible Hulk, where the reboot origin story was 5 minutes during the opening credits.

It is interesting that Josh Trank's version of FF is a coming of age story, well not really interesting but some word with similar meaning.  Josh Trank's best work thus far is Chronicle, a coming of age story about three friends who get super-powers and what happens to them.   So FF is a coming of age story about FOUR friends who get super-powers and what happens to them.   See the difference, oh yeah and the budget $20 to $100.  
The other problem with a coming of age story is the original story of the Fantastic Four, you know four OLDER individuals who gain powers later in life and how it changes their adult lives.

Which leads to the question, What happens if Fantastic Four underperforms at the Box Office?
For the record I am going to say underperforming is less than $150 million domestically and under $200 internationally.  
If FF falls dramatically short, say $115 and $150, I am guessing the second film is delayed or cancelled and 20th Century Fox and Marvel have discussions about giving back the license.
If FF falls short by a little bit, the third movie (crossover) is not going to happen.  The Second film may be delayed and Josh Trank replaced. 
If FF outperforms expectations than a lot of bloggers are going to have crow for supper for a while.

What are my expectations?
I have a hard time seeing FF outperforming expectations.   In the world of Sci-Fi movies, not just super-hero, but Sci-Fi movies in general (including supernatural horror, futuristic, alternative history, monsters and so forth) very few movies, not made by Marvel, have out performed expectations.   Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins is on a very short list that includes Avatar and ...  well ... that maybe it in the past ten years.   A few like Godzilla and Interstellar either barely beat or just missed their expectations but not many movies truly beat expectations.  The only question is how far below expectations do I expect FF to fall.
With that in mind I have a hard time seeing Fantastic Four II being released as scheduled in ultra competitive 2017 time frame.  

If 20th Century Fox did not control the X-Men IP, I am currently giving it a 25% chance that the license will be returned to Marvel before the next movie is made. A 50% chance that an agreement with Marvel would be made similar to the one between Sony and Marvel.  The remaining 25% chance that 20th Century will continue the course with Fantastic Four.   The percent chance that 20th Century Fox enters into a deal with Marvel Studios would be much higher if there was not so much animosity between the two groups.

Just Putting this in writing.
I do not anticipate that Marvel has any interest in the Fantastic Four under its current configuration of twenty-something characters. 
I want to be one of the first to say that I wouldn't be shocked if Marvel were to look at Ioan Gruffeld, Jessica Alba and Michael Chiklis plus a replacement for Chris Evans if a crossover agreement were to happen.



Enough about the Fantastic Four, what about the X-Men?
The last two X-Men Movies, The Wolverine and X-Men: Days of Future Past, underperformed at the domestic box office ($132 and $233 Million Respectfully).   Both movies, on the other hand, outperformed expectations in the international box office ($284 and $511 M).
Executives at 20th Century Fox believed The Wolverine was a solid enough movie to make $65 M opening weekend with an outside chance to hit $75 M and end up in the $175 M range overall before the release of the film.  The movie fell roughly 20% short on both numbers.   X:Men Days of Future Past also fell 20% short of both opening weekend and total domestic.  The two movies combined to be approximately $100 below expectations.    That is a lot of jing, considering it was the budget of The Wolverine.

X-Men: Apocalypse is budgeted to be the most expensive film ever made by 20th Century Fox, in the neighborhood of $250 M.   There is hope at 20th Century Fox that using the OTOY system in the Fantastic Four can be used of XM:A and a savings of about $50 M can be seen.   With XM:A about to go into production I would have expected to hear rave reviews about OTOY and plans to use it wide spread by now.   As I have not hear those rave reviews I am thinking there is an issue and that traditional VX is going to be used in XM:A.

To keep up with the increased expenses XM:A will need to earn $270M domestically.   With XM:A being released in IMAX (the preceding films were not) it should bring a 10% to 15% increase in domestic revenue as well as the usual ticket price increases.  Additionally Deadpool will be released 90 days before.   Simply put it will need to sell 50,000 to 100,000 more tickets than XM:DoFP.   If Deadpool brings in similar numbers to The Wolverine coupled with the fact XM:DoFP was well received its not hard to imagine XM:A making those numbers.   That's not the problem, the fact that XM:DoFP underperformed by 20% puts the real number that XM:A should reach at $320M is the problem and its hard to see the movie hitting that mark.

X-Men: The TV Series
Way back in early 2000's there was a lawsuit involving Marvel Studios/Entertainment and 20th Century Fox concerning the rights both have for the X-Men Universe.   The result of the suit clearly indicated there are two sets of rights.  Marvel controls the X-Men Universe on TV and similar platforms while 20th Century Fox controls ALL mutants in Theatrically Released Motion Pictures.

So when rumors started circling that 21st Century Fox (20th Century Fox parent Company) was exploring a X-Men TV show for FOX (the TV Network) my ears perked up.   In many ways this is similar to the rumors about a Spider-Verse Movie with a female lead, it can only happen if there is an agreement between Fox and Marvel.   The rumors have died down lately, but something to watch for.

The Fantastic Four and the X-Men    
Before further discussing the X-Men IP the question becomes how linked are these two IPs in the eyes of Marvel and 20th Century Fox.   I honestly cannot answer.  I can suggest based upon public comment prior to Fantastic Four going into production that there is little or no link, however in the same breath I would add that people at 20th Century Fox would like there to be. 

From where I sit writing this I cannot see Marvel Entertainment/Studios coming to an agreement with 20th Century Fox on just one of the two IPs, if it is just one, it will not be the X-Men.  
Up above I suggested that there was a 50% chance that 20th Century Fox and Marvel come to an agreement, but that's not a true percentage chance.   With the animosity between the two studios that number should be closer to zero, but we aren't talking X-Men, we are suggesting the Fantastic Four.

What could Marvel Use?
Wolverine, Beast, X-23, Professor Xavier, an older Fantastic Four AND villains. 
The heroes would be a nice little addition to MCU, its the villains that Marvel Studios needs, especially big time named villains.  Doctor Doom, Galacatus, Magneto, Mystique, Jugernaut, and Sabretooth.  


Let's cut to the chase: Does 20th Century Fox and Marvel Studios make an agreement similar to the one that Sony Production Entertainment did with Marvel Studios earlier this month?
No.

If they make an agreement it will be a MUCH BIGGER agreement, involving TV rights, marketing and character licenses; not necessarily more money involved. 

The odds of that agreement are probably a little less than a coin flip.  An under performing Fantastic Four probably will lead to that push, which may occur before the movies release, but I don't think Marvel will go along with it.   Let's be clear however if Deadpool and X-Men: Apocalypse are going to beat expectations, and Wolverine 3 as well, than 20th Century Fox needs Marvel's help. 

An agreement between the two studios will clearly allow FOX to create and air an X-Men themed TV series, and maybe even a Fantastic Four theme TV series as well.
 

Now that Sony and Marvel Studios have signed an agreement what is next up on the agenda for Marvel Studios.






 

• Part 1 - How does Warner Bros/DC Studios respond?
• Part 1 - Sony's Spider-Man Cinematic Universe
• Part 2 - 20th Century Fox
• Part 3 - Random Thoughts

 

How does Warner Bros./DC Studios respond? 

I really do not know what to expect here. 
When newspapers all over the world are talking about the great plans of your rival its has to be nerve racking; considering how little attention you are getting in the first place.   Made worse by the fact a major casting in The Suicide Squad was printed on the bottom corner or page 12 of a recent Hollywood Newspaper.  

What's surprising is how little advertising in general we are seeing from WB for all of their movies.   Warner Bros just laid-off in excess of 1,000 people last week over the entirety of the media empire.   The company is rumored to be loosing cash at a record rate, there have been calls to spin off several subsidiaries and just shutdown others.      

 

Who is cast as the next Spider-Man?
I have been a fairly vocal critic of The Amazing Spider-Man story arc, basically since Marc Webb was announced as director.  With all that venom spilled I will still say the one thing the team at Sony got right was casting.   Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Sally Field, Martin Sheen, Dennis Leary and so on were pretty exceptional in their roles, and there was phenomenal chemistry in their onscreen performances.   It is to bad the story stunk to the high heavens.
Like many critics I am disappointed that Andrew Garfield is being replaced, but there is a glimmer of hope.

Spider-Man was two (plus) different people in the Ultimate Universe, Peter Parker and Miles Morales.   There is a decent chance that Sony/Marvel will look for a Black Latino to play Miles Morales leaving the door open for Andrew Garfield return.   How much of a chance is currently debatable at the moment.   Insiders are suggesting that Marvel and Sony would really like to use Miles Morales character, the problem is many of the leaked candidates so far are of the Scrawny glow in the dark white 20-something actors.     

If Miles Morales is the next Spider-Man will Peter Parker Return?
Regardless of I how I feel as a fan I honestly believe that there is only a small percentage chance that Sony/Marvel will choose the Miles Morales (or any of the dozen or other variants); maybe 25% at most.   For the sake of argument, however, let assume they do choose Miles Morales, the answer is yes. 
The leaked emails from Sony suggest that multiple versions of Spider-Man were (are) being considered with a different core audience suggested for each one. 

As a follow up bonus question:  Why Andrew Garfield and not Tobey Maguire?
Well um er ahh. Tobey Maguire will is, um er, too old, sort of kind of.  
Here is how I would work Tobey Maguire into the story, May "Mayday" Parker, aka Spider-Girl is the daughter of Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson.    Mayday Parker, like Jessica Drew and Cindy Moon are not a part of the Spider-Man IP controlled by Sony.
Personally I felt Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield made good Peter Parkers for very different reasons, I wish that Tobey would have gotten to work with better VX technology and Andrew better stories.  But at this stage Tobey is 39 going of 40 years old and while I believe he could integrate into the Avengers better he is too old for a stand alone film.

Will Marvel Studios be involved in the Spider-Man Universe spin-off movies?
This one is pretty easy to answer, yes at least in a limited way.
The Sinister Six and Venom are being reworked so that they in theory belong in the shared Marvel Cinematic Universe.  This doesn't mean they will be canon, rather the story and timeline will fit the MCU timeline in the same way that The Amazing Spider-Man was a part of the MCU timeline.
The Glass Ceiling Project, female lead set in the Spider-Man Universe is another story.   Currently it looks like multiple characters form the Marvel Cinematic Universe IP may be popping up in this film including the lead which tends to me to believe this will be more canon than the other two projects.  
I should note that there is well placed rumor that Angelina Jolie will be involved in this project as either director or actress. 

What about the Spider-Man, Marvel, 20th Century Fox crossover rumor?
This one is complicated.  
Rumors of a potential Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends themed movie trended upwards prior to the great Sony Hack of 2014.   The hack did not provide much validation to these rumors, yet they continued to grow in volume as well as detail. 
In the  cartoons the Amazing friends were Bobby Drake, the mutant Ice-Man and Angelica Jones, the mutant Firestar.   As an aside Firestar replaced the Human Torch Johnny Storm due to a licensing dispute in 1980.   
The rumors on the movie go like this, Spider-Man, Firestar and Tarene (Thor Girl/Tara Olsen) as roommates in college at Empire State University who are dealing with Dr. Doom plot.  Yeap just crossed all of the IPs.  
Two months ago I would have said very little chance of that happening, maybe less than zero, but I am guessing we might be in the double digits as a percentage chance; however with speculation of Dr. Doom from the latest origin story of Fantastic Four it probably would have a different villain. 

Sony Corporation released its latest recap of its financial earlier this week, a summary of the report can be seen here at Bloomberg.

Wow, two options here:

1) Sony has a major card or two tucked up it sleeve that no one knows about.

2) Sony is in major denial about the state of its Spider-Man pictures.

Lets cover the basics, this year Sony Picture released 17 movies and had 3 holdovers from 2013 and earned $1.189 Billion Dollars in revenue so far in 2014.  That's on pace to be $1.3 Billion which is on par with average revenue sine 2000.

 

According to Box Office Mojo the top movies for 2014 were:

Not included on that list are Sex Tape $38 ($126) and Pompeii $23 ($117).

 

Out of that list of movies which movies out performed realistic expectations?

22 Jump Street and Heaven is Real.

 

The Equalizer, The Monuments Men, and Think Like a Man Too all came in on the lower end of realistic expectations.     The Amazing Spider-Man 2 I would list at expectations (I predicted $200 and $700) however the movie did not earn what the Studio thought it could. 

 

The other 11 movies Sony released were all below expectations in terms of earning in theatrical release.   Some slightly, some dramatically below. 

 

So what does Sony Pictures revenue look like if the 11 movies that underperformed hit the bottom of expectations?  Well roughly it would be an increase of $130 to $150 Million in Revenue.   Throw in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and you end up in the neighborhood of $250 Million more in Revenue or 22% increase. 

 

But here is where it gets murky for Sony.   In 2015 Sony / Columbia Pictures has only announced the release of 11 movies?     Beyond Bond 24, you have Hotel Transylvania 2, and Popeye both are cartoons.   2016 looks just as dismal and 2017 looks worse without anything that would be considered a Tent-Pole announced so far.  Let us not even start with comparison to Buena Vista (Disney), 20th Century Fox or Warner Bros. as there really is no comparison in terms of what the other distributors have on their lists. 

 

There is no way with that core of movies Sony Pictures can increase its revenue by 36%.     Further with only one Spider-Man film in that time frame (The Sinister Six Nov 2016) I am really confused how is that going to work out.  

Speculation is a art in assembling a puzzle with a number of key pieces missing.  We don't know what we don't know; great saying when we start speculating on topics like this.   While we know a lot there is something we don't know that would greatly illuminate our understanding of this topic in particular.

This post turned out to be a heck of a lot longer than I originally anticipated when I started looking at 85 or so Spider-Man Cinematic Universe rumors.    It may need some editing but hopefully I got it pretty clear.

Spider-Man 3 is still technically the most expensive film ever made Columbia Pictures at $258 Million dollars budget, and a similar budget was planned for Spider-Man 4. 

 

Columbia Pictures President Amy Pascale, at least according to Sam Raimi director of the Spider-Man Trilogy, wanted to reboot the Spider-Man Universe prior to the release of Spiderman 3 in 2007.  This is a somewhat surprising revelation considering the first Spiderman film and the sequel earned a combined total of  $1.6 Billion dollars in the Box Office (slightly more then $2 Billion if adjusted for inflation).  

 

I am not aware of any official and or verified comments from Sam Raimi or the others involved; however in reading numerous interviews and articles:

In contrast to what was happening at Sony and Columbia Pictures Spider-Man 3 was indeed made and released on May 4th, 2007.   On RottenTomatoes.com the consensus of the reviews is: Though there are more characters and plotlines, and the action sequences still dazzle, Spider-Man 3 nonetheless isn't quite as refined as the first two.

 

Sam Raimi was very displeased with the end result of Spider-Man 3.   In his opinion too much stuff just didn't work.   Sam spent the next 3 years working on Spider-Man 4 in an effort to correct the errors of the third movie.    Finally accord to Sam Raimi he told Amy Pascale "I don’t want to make a movie that is less than great, so I think we shouldn’t make this picture. Go ahead with your reboot, which you’ve been planning anyway.” Officially the movie was cancelled on January 11, 2010.

 

In 2005 Twentieth Century Fox released the Fantastic Four and for all its problems I would like to bring attention to one aspect.   Fox had the Daredevil, X-Men and Fantastic Four film rights, a conscience decision was made to make the tone of these films greatly different.  Daredevil would be a hard-core PG-13, almost Rated R film.  X-Men would be aimed at the older teen audience with a solid PG-13 rating.  Fantastic Four would be aimed for the younger teen audience, due to the comic book violence it would be a PG-13 but the rest was supposed to very PGish.   This decision was constantly in the cross hairs as Daredevil never had a hard enough edge and Fantastic Four was too campy. 

I don't want to spend too much time discussing the recent films.

 

Even though Sony and Columbia have talked about making Spider-Man films darker and more gritty, lets use the word realistic, that wasn't the case with either TASM film.   Both films were clearly marketed towards the family or younger audience, I am not necessarily saying that's a bad plan in today's Superhero Market, rather it is not a plan that has worked well.  With the success of the Darker DC films and the hard core PG-13 ratings on the other Marvel movies it had to be a conscience decision to be more lighter and airier.  Just like the Fantastic Four and numerous DC properties that were aimed for a younger audience these films have not attracted a hard core following.

 

Beyond the obvious plot holes, which are large enough to drive a Armored Division through and no one would notice, there are several issues with the The Amazing Spider-Man films.

Sony Corporation is clearly a company that believes in reboots, hard reboots  

 

What do we know as of November 6th 2014.

Sony loves reboots and retooling, I think in an effort to control the costs of already high production costs.  There have been 15 reboots under the Sony/Columbia Pictures banner since 2010, more than the other 5 major studios combined.  That is not counting the other half-dozen or so reboots that Sony/Columbia Pictures have in the works for the next three years.   I am sure they have more than one internal discussion on rebooting Spider-Man again, however it appears that some has explained that rebooting right now is not good for business and that philosophy is now on hold.
Even though TASM and TASM have under performed in comparison to the MCU characters and the movies are on par with the X-Men Universe by Fox this is not a "good thing" for Sony.   Reboots right now in todays market are generating 50% less revenue than 5 years ago according to Box Office Mojo when you look at the increase in ticket revenue 5 years ago compared to the lesser ticket revenue or decrease in sales currently happening. 

 

Avi Arad

Where is Avi Arad and his faithful sidekick Matthew Tolmach?  Avi's ego dwarfs that of a small black hole, and that's tough to do, he has made hundreds of comments but about four months ago he dropped off the planet.   In the previous decade the longest time frame I could find without at least one Avi Arad quote is about 3 to 4 weeks, not even a month.   Four months is an eternity for Avi Arad.
When Andrew Garfield and Brian Michael Bendis spoke up about Miles Morales in April it took Avi Arad under 24 hours to respond.   Considering Marvel Entertainment Special on its 75th anniversary just aired and not a single mention of Avi Arad was made I figured we were good for at least two pages of commentary in response.  As of writing this post nada from either of them.

Sony and Marvel have meet and it certainly appears that Marvel has given something to Sony, a bone as it were.  I am not sure exactly what it is, but something has been agreed upon.
One potential area of discussion is the possibility of using a Spider-Man action figure in the upcoming Toy-Story 4 movie.  While that might be good for Spider-Man it really doesn't help Sony / Columbia.  
 

Miles Morales as Spider-Man

Right now Marvel controls the rights to Miles Morales (Ultimate Universe - Spider-Man), Silk, Spider-Woman, Spider-Girl and others.   Many rumors are suggesting that Sony may be looking at these characters, without an agreement from Marvel even sketching up a treatment with these films would create a situation where Sony would be in violation of copy right law and the potential they could be stripped of the Spider-Man IP.   So if these rumors are true than an agreement must have been reached. 

These rumors also suggest that Firestar, a mutant whose rights are controlled by 20th Century Fox is involved in the screenplays would suggest that an agreement with 20th Century Fox has also been agreed to.

The other option is these rumors are completely false and made up in someone's basement as he waits for his mother to call him up for supper. 

The kicker to me is that Andrew Garfield  has said something on the record about it.   It's possible he does not know, but he would have been instructed, contractually obligated to keep his mouth shut, especially after the public reprimand from Avi Arad back in April.   Not that stopped Idris Elbe last week.

Silk

If Lisa Joy Nolan is working on a female or ensemble female film for the Spider-Man Cinematic Universe, with what we know for sure today, it has to be a Black Cat centered film.  Sony cannot legally use the other characters.  HOWEVER, if Sony and Marvel  have or were to come to an agreement the logical choice is Silk / Spider-Girl / Cindy Moon, a classmate of Peter Parker who was bitten by the same radioactive spider.
Obviously there are some issues with this version of story in the Spider-Man Cinematic Universe, but nothing that cannot be overcome.

 

Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield are a couple, you can either have them together or you can have Andrew Garfield (he is under contract).   I highly doubt you could have Emma Stone without Andrew Garfield, wouldn't be a happy home.

 

Andrew Garfield - Nov 4

What's up with the radical change in appearance for Andrew Garfield.   His next film project is the 17th Century set piece Silence directed my Martin Scorsese.   While filming is set to get underway shortly he is expected to appear with a beard and flyaway hair that he has been sporting.  On November 4th Andrew Garfield was spotted with a Clean Cut and the Peter Parker haircut.

 

Andrew Garfield has been making the rounds for interviews and improved his visibility in the past two weeks.   With Emma Stone performing on Broadway right now it is hard to be hidden but for six months he has kept himself out of the publics eye, two weeks ago that changed.  
Why?
Is he over the negative publicity that the poor performance of TASM2 or is he making himself more visible for other reasons.  With a new film about to begin filming in Japan it seems odd that he is filming stuff in New York, commercial(s) maybe.

One rumor I have yet to hear but seems to be bubbling towards the surface is that Andrew Garfield's version of Spider-Man / Peter Parker will make a cameo or minor appearance in Avengers: Age of Ultron. To me this is not out of the realm of possibilities, albeit it is somewhat of a HUGE longshot of happening.  

Multiple rumors have suggested that the stand alone movies Venom and the Sinister Six are on hold.  There are enough of these rumors suggesting their is some validity to them.  While Disney's Maleficent was a success at the Box office it wasn't a run-away success that many predicted.   Was the domestic viewing audience not ready for an anti-hero superhero?  
The Challenge for Sony is the order that these two films are going to made in.  From a business perspective I have a hard time believing Sinister Six will be successful enough to justify moving forward with Venom.  If Venom was first, as a more noted fan favorite and well known name, from a business perspective I think it would be more successful.
My believe is that at least one of these films have been cancelled, most likely Venom for all the wrong reasons.
If Sony is moving ahead with a female lead/ensemble cast such as Silk or Black Cat film Venom would be a great villain to bring immediate notoriety to this film.