best blockbuster multi-movie franchise of the 2000's

woops got confused and forgot you don't actually think they're doing a good job, you're just defending the idea of launching off-shoot movies about non-heroic supporting characters as leads.

anyway, as i said, it's possible the drew goddard script for sinister six is as great as they say (and in case you forgot they're still making the movie and extending the "universe", just not rushing to knock a spidey-universe movie out a year). I'm just saying it's an unprecedented move and one pretty clearly inspired by the lack of actual heroes to expand the size of their world. otherwise i think someone would have done it before.

call me crazy but i'm willing to bet if sony had more heroes they wouldn't be a in hurry to make a sinister six movie. also huge lol at someone looking at that warner dc slate and everything connected to it and thinking 'well at least they're not cynical'.

i do agree that quality counts and that's why marvel is all "woo-wee let's try ant-man next" and dc has yet to successfully launch a character outside the guys who first hit the screen decades ago. but yeah sony would launch some hero franchises instead of "anti-hero" franchises if they could.

But it's just a spin-off. Puss in Boots, Get Him to the Greek, The Scorpion King, Elektra: It's been done (thanks wiki). It's just insane to believe you could spin something off every second year, without making memorable movies. But I don't think it's particularly more insane then the idea to make a Shazam film in a universe only containing Man of Steel, which people didn't even really like. Like, using Iron Man as the foundation for a complete universe seemed pretty insane years ago, but the film was memorable, and people wanted more.

And Sony are halving the amount of movies. Which really is a pretty significant step.

Puss in Boots, Get Him to the Greek, The Scorpion King, Elektra: It's been done

ok let's just accept the idea of puss in boots and aldous snow as "villains" getting offshoots.

however: flop, flop, flop and flop.

But I don't think it's particularly more insane then the idea to make a Shazam film in a universe only containing Man of Steel, which people didn't even really like.

captain america and thor were made in a universe only containing iron man (if you say hulk than you also have to say batman is in their universe). and i agree that marvel is on more solid ground, thanks to quality.

On Golden Pound
: an XXX parody

actually, scorpion king and puss'n'boots were more underperforming than flops, sorry to disparage them

it is interesting they were able to take previously obscure iron man characters like captain america and thor and develop them

lol i think that's gonna be how i refer to the marvel universe from now on, the iron man universe.

iron man was so good that following iron man 2 with a Team Whiplash movie and a Crimson Dynamo movie would have been just as smart as making a Captain America movie and a Thor movie - it's just about quality

now i understand why all the kids who were imitating hulk last week kept referring to him as 'that guy who works for tony stark'.

I don't think anybody would have batted an eye if Marvel had followed Iron Man 2 with a War Machine film and a Black Widow film. But if DC had followed Man of Steel with an... who was in Man of Steel? I don't watch this crap. Anyway, people would have thought them insane.

Also, you guys do realize the fact that Sony probably wish they could do a Wolverine-film doesn't disprove my point, right?

well if your point is that quality matters, no one's debating you

but if your point is that making movies about villainous supporting characters is no less commercially sound a form of "universe building" than making movies about less familiar heroes owned by the same company, then yes, people disagree with you

My point was that the Sony-plan wasn't particularly more insane than other studios plans. And that's due to stuff like films per year, the popularity of films so far, etc. Like, having a date for the sequel to the FF reboot already is madness, nobody liked the first films.

ok yeah, people disagree with you. the fact that you have to reference the scorpion king (sequel straight to dvd), elektra (flop, rights reverted to marvel) and frikkin get him to the greek as precedent suggests its not a road that's led to riches.

but who knows maybe venom will turn out to be a puss in boots

marvel had enough success with iron man that they made movies for two other decades-old, established superheroes and then a team-up movie with all three and the hulk.

fox has consistently milked the x-franchise for about 15 years while playing relatively small-stakes ball with the fantastic four

WB has the two biggest superheroes in movie history, and is trying a rushed, sloppy version of what marvel did based off those tentpoles.

Sony is trying to make movies about Spider-Man's enemies.

So yeah, I'd say Sony sticks out.

Yeah, you're still not considering my point. But who knows maybe Shazam will turn out to be a Green Lantern.

My point was that the Sony-plan wasn't particularly more insane than other studios plans.

yeah no see i compared the plans and pointed out how sony's stuck out. fox and disney/marvel's plans haven't been insane. disney's looks daunting but at least has a precedent they can blame if they fly off a cliff. Sony can't say "hey what's so crazy about spending 150 million on a movie about six supervillains hanging out, it's been done." cuz it hasn't, get him to the greek aside.

sorry wb's looks daunting, rather

No, you didn't compare them. You didn't look at planned films per year, popularity of films, etc. You just reiterated your point that Sony is making films about anti-heroes, and the others are not.

plus disney is making a film about Boba Fett.

the fact that dc has had a flop doesn't lead to some false equivalency where maybe they shoulda just made a really good movie about two-face and the riddler and mr freeze and the mad hatter thinking up some non-bat-related hijinks

sorry fred i thought you already knew about the popularity of the films and didn't need me to tell you that marvel and fox's have done really well

yeah, obviously i'm not calling marvel's plans insane. they have functioned quite well. and were paced very carefully, remember they made iron man 2 before they made cap and thor. fox's fantastic four plans are insane. their x-men are mainly weird because they still seem to hinge on hugh jackman. look at other studio-verses like the thought up universal-monster-verse, the star wars-verse, and apparantly the godzilla-verse, and i don't think sony stands out.

also, sidenote: 'maybe they shoulda just made a really good movie about two-face and the riddler and mr freeze and the mad hatter thinking up some non-bat-related hijinks' They are making this tv-show. But that's neither here nor there.

fox has made modestly (for a super-hero movie) budgeted fantastic four flicks. the first did very well. the second underperformed. they waited a couple years and are now doing a "grounded" (which i assume means cheaper) reboot with some very buzzed about young actors. I don't see what's insane about that at all.

it's not like they announced a dr doom movie or anything

they've planned a sequel for 2017 already.

did you know they penciled in a hangover II movie before the first one came out? They even optioned a script for Taxi 2 before that Fallon/Latifah vehicle came out. These days you call dibs on dates you'll want way in advance.

now if they planned Dr Doom and Fin Fang Foom's Bogus Journey for 2017 then i'd be like yeah thats crazy

come on. it's a year before the reboot is out, and the first two hardly set the world on fire. 2017 is the same timeframe that marvel has used to sketch in a guardians of the galaxy sequel this week, and that film has been hyped for months. fox could have just called dips anyway on an unspecified project, it's not like an ff-sequel will scare anyone anyhow, until the first film proves it has legs.

you're really grasping at straws to not admit that you're basically just making fun of the idea of a venom movie, which btw has been talked about for years. which, i mean, be my guest, make fun of sony all you want. please be more cruel. but don't pretend we're actually having a discussion about studio-strategies any more.

you're really grasping at straws to not admit that you're basically just making fun of the idea of a venom movie, which btw has been talked about for years.

a venom movie was announced the same time they announced sinister six

http://screenrant.com/venom-movie-amazing-spider-man-sinister-six-sony/

disney - "let's create a bunch of tentpole hero franchises that can be combined if popular and dispatched if not (hypothetically, not that we know what a flop looks like)" . Not crazy.

fox - "let's make movies about a massive team of heroes that we keep building, with spin-offs for the biggest individual heroes (channing tatum's gonna play gambit!). oh and lets make some mid-level hero films with this other franchise we have". not crazy.

dc - "let's make a movie where our two biggest heroes fight and then a bunch of movies about our other heroes like marvel did after all man of steel was totally our iron man." ok, we're getting kinda nuts.

sony - "let's make all the spider-man movies we can and then some movies where we see what spidey's enemies do when spidey isn't around." the wackiest!

basically i'd say sony is acting in comparison to fox the way wb is acting in comparison to marvel, where they don't have the patience to build a world more slowly and with more care.

i will admit universal's monster-verse dreams really take the cake and disney's star wars look pretty ambitious/reckless, but then who can blame them for thinking the star wars audience will forgive slapdash crap and spinoffs

and with sony putting on the brakes if dc confirms that slate they'll definitely look like the biggest nuts of the pack

also lol at "you're grasping at straws" from the guy who used get him to the greek as precedent for a rogue's gallery movie

...the whole point of this Sony crap is just to retain the rights, isn't it? it's not like either Spider-Man movie didn't profit. And they don't get stuck in a crazy rush to produce like they did when Raimi's Spider-Man 4 fell apart.

Rights primarily but sony's had a lot of high profile flops lately (if you want to use "abysmal" to describe a Sony films profits check out White House down, after earth and Pompeii) so the whole A Spidey Film Every Two Years was also to tell themselves they had a cash cow. Which they do, but if Spidey 5 does worse than Spidey 4 what can they expect from People Who Don't Like Spidey and Photonegative Of Spidey.

Wb superhero h

woops, iphone slip

what i was saying is WB's anxious horniness for super-franchises could also be chalked up to the fact that Harry Potter's gone and otherwise they tend to spend hundred of millions on movies like Transcendence and Jack The Giant Slayer

ain't nobody but the fanboys going to a Venom movie and considering how much they hated the second flick in the new series....

You can always trick regular folk into seeing comic book movies, you just have to disguise it. See: Wanted, Chronicle (in spirit).

Haha good luck disguising a venom movie

'aww WTF they liiiiiied to us'

I honestly don't think it would be too hard, "angsty youngster gets infected by space goo, becomes monster" isn't that different from many horror films

Ok i know asm2 underperformed but I doubt they're going to make it a horror movie about a guy turned into a monster by black goo and have no Spidey connection

I mean if they just wanted to make a horror movie I doubt they'd use a marvel brand villain to do it

"My stars the new spider-man movie only made 700m"

"Looks like we'll have to be a little...tricky with venom, get people to think they're seeing a horror movie."

i bet you that conversation really happened

Not if the execs know how a horror movie grosses compared to anything Spidey related