This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Spiderman, Sony vs Marvel
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin
All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin
EXLUSIVE DRUDGE REPORT (Score:2, Interesting)
Ie; "The loss of SPIDERMAN could affect all of SONY's future financial plans for its U.S. entertainment company"
Yeah, I'm sure sony has no other way of making money and will file chapter 7 because of a little spiderman tiff.
Easy way out (Score:3, Interesting)
Dance with the devil... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not news. It's Sony. So, while I hope Marvel comes out ahead through all this (either by gaining more money, correcting the situation, or taking Spiderman from Sony altogether) I still can't help but wonder what exactly Marvel expected from Sony?
Contracts? In the hands of an evil entity like Sony, contracts don't mean anything that money can't change.
Ethics? There is no ethics in business.
Plain old common sense? HAHAHAHAH
You know what they say about dancing with the devil....
Re:Easy way out (Score:4, Interesting)
As much as I think Spiderman is a great superhero concept, the Sunday comic strip (which Stan Lee supposedly does himself) is *lame*!
I guess he's trying to make sure it's ok for younger kids to read and everything, but come on! The stilted conversations are almost unbearable. There's much more suspense and sense of believability in the dialog of "Brenda Starr", for crying out loud!
Its all about the money. (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry for the AC post, but. . . (Score:1, Interesting)
Sorry, but for obvious reasons I'm posting in a cowardly, anonymous way.
I have a company that works with Marvel, and I can unequivocally say that they are the craziest, most irrational, rudest, least business-like people we have ever dealt with. I'm not saying that Sony smells like roses here, just that the business side of Marvel is like an asylum with the inmates in charge.
So personally, no matter what the facts are, I find myself in the odd position of rooting for Sony. Somebody has to teach those idiots a lesson.
Thanks, I feel better now.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Interesting)
When I think of Spider-Man, I now think of $10,000 Sony Plasma displays, not Marvel Comics. Given this, I can certainly understand why Marvel is pissed off.
Studio Math 101 (Score:3, Interesting)
Studios arbitrarily state that a movie must make 3xCost to make a profit; if a movie costs $10million, it must make $30million to break even.
The expenses are the cost of the production, the cost of advertising/promotion, and the cost of distribution.
What the public does _not_ know is that promotion is an arbitrary figure, and distribution is a set amount established each year when the NATO Group (National Association of Theatre Owners) say how many theatres are willing to open a film a year in advance of release!
Realistically, post-production expenses are less than a _third_ of production cost...that $10million movie only costs $3.5million to hype and ship.
So where does the rest of the "expense" come in?
First, it's to pay for any frill or perks the stars may expense the studio, like Eddie Murphy's requirement for a custom-designed home where he films, or Julia Roberts' wanting hand-shaved virgin duck testicles melted in aged Tibetan yak butter, or any other ludicrous item or device.
Second, it's used to cover studio expenses even _marginally_ related to a film. Jack Valenti says that he can hear the sound stage buzzer in Studio 8 when the doors are open on Studio 3 a mile away...so Valenti orders multi-million dollar soundproofing or weatherproofing or smearing the walls with lamb's blood, and charges it to HOWARD THE DUCK's post-production expenses.
Read the trial transcripts and summaries for the lawsuit Art Buchwald filed on Eddie Murphy and the production of COMING TO AMERICA, which is the best explanation of "Studio Math"
You too can learn how TITANIC is considered a _loss_ by the two studios who paid for it, and guess how much of a tax write-off they got for it (140% of expenses is the last rumor).
20th Century Fox declared STAR WARS a money maker only _after_ it was pointed out that there was no possible way a $10million film making over $500million could be a "loss".
Re:I've said it before.. (Score:2, Interesting)
You mean the $200 Linux kit that doesn't allow you to burn your apps to disc for others to play with? I guess I can give them credit for kissing Slashdot's ass. It's not so interesting when you read the FAQ and realize it's not near as interesting as it could be. Sega had it right with their Dreamcast.
"Also, they sell (sold? haven't seen one recently) CD-RW drives, DVD-RW drives, MP3 players, etc. even though they are into producing content in a BIG way. "
CD and DVD products were made by so many companies that Sony really had no choice but to compete. The market wouldn't support their mischief. However, their MP3 players are evil. Not only do they only take Memory Stick or Minidisc, but they also are pushing a proprietary copy protection format known as MagicGate [doubleclick.net].
"... without regard to some grand lockin strategy. Unlike certain Massive Software vendors I can think of. "
Oh really? Okay, find me a Sony brand Digital Camera that supports anything besides Memory Stick. Find me an MP3 player that uses Compact Flash or Smart Media. I could probably keep poking around here, but the reason that you don't percieve their lock-in scheme is that they compete in areas that have a little too much competition. Sony can't make a Sony-only DVD-R because nobody'd buy it.
You can turn a blind eye to it if ya like, but sooner or later you're going to buy a Sony product and figure out just how proprietary they are, especially when they're the only one providing a product like that.
is that why they paired with Verant? (Score:5, Interesting)
I feel sympothy for them but they should be professional. I and my wife decided we would like to get back into the game of MMOG so I did a bit of research at that time on the various MMOG's out then. What I came across was a varied array of horror stories dealing all with customer service. I read about how players had their accounts suspended and then terminated often when they were actually the victim of hacking attacks. (it was hard to filter through the BS, but some presented their cases very well to include providing what evidence they had and Verant/SOE responses.
I was warned by some that in the unlikely event that my account was somehow compromised through no fault or negligence of my own then by reporting it there was a high probability that my account would be permanently deleted. I thought that was odd and so decided to verify the policy with Sony.
Looking online at their site, I did multiple searches through the knowledge available and perused everything from the FAQ's and posted legal mumbo jumbo. However, it appeared that all that was ever mentioned was, "We are not responsible for securing your computer or network." OK, that doesn't sound unreasonable at all. However, past experience also knew that this could easily be just an ambigious coverall attempt to justify stupid decisions upon their part. I needed hard facts so why not ask their friendly customer service reps (that was before the trend to call it "customer care" appeared I believe).
What happened next seemed at first to be sadly just another fine example of dealing with customer service and tech support today. I first stated my question. Then stated after that more specifics about it, including what I was NOT asking. I also pointed out clearly at the beginning that I had read as much info as I could find on their site and included the relevant FAQ portions that I felt did not fully answer my question. First response back? Noise. It appeared that an automated system went through and mined my question with the customer rep only reading the scripts output. He responded that I look at the FAQ and restated what I myself had quoted in my email regarding their "responsibility." (BTW, my questions were basically "If I take precautions of firewall, anti virus, spyware checking, yadda yadda yadda, what would happen if someone somehow managed to crack my account?" and also "In such a case as this, would Verant and SOE's policy allow banning of the victim's (me) account?")
I responded with a generic statement up front of "please read this email in its entirety as the original query was not addressed" and proceeded to then quote my original question. I really could not think of another way to post it.
This time it seems he read a bit more. He then proceeded to quote from the FAQ how each banning case goes through a review process... yet did not say that it was possible. Time for response numero dos.
This time he addressed the portion of my query about the compromised account review policy... but still did not give a concrete answer as to whether their policy allowed them to ban the victims account. (I had explicitly asked this every time). Well I guess I will fire up another response.
This time I apparently had worn him down a bit (and I refrained from calling him a turdstain or anything else like that) and he testily responded that the security of the accounts was solely the responsibility of the user. He then seemed to use his own words to paraphrase the parts of the FAQ about, "don't give yo
Re:I've said it before.. (Score:2, Interesting)
You miss the point. If I like Sony stuff, I'm free to buy it. If I don't like it (and I don't) I'm free to buy somebody else's. If it turns out that most people don't like paying extra to buy Sony's stuff that doesn't play nicely with other manufacturers' products, then Sony will lose market share and either change their strategy or leave the market. That's the way markets are supposed to work.
If I like Microsoft's products, I'm also free to buy them. If I don't like Microsoft's products, though, I don't necessarily have much choice not to buy them. It's all-but impossible to find a decent PC laptop that comes without Windows, so I may be stuck paying for a Microsoft product whether I want it or not. That's not the way markets are supposed to work, which is why you'll hear people complaining about Microsoft's monopoly.
Re:I remember when trademarks weren't legal. (Score:3, Interesting)
I do too. It was back when it wasn't called intellectual property.
I feel a rant coming on....
The problem is, Sony didn't make a Spiderman movie, make some money, and that's that. They are trying to establish the Spiderman Franchise. Nothing is "normal" anymore, everything has to be pushed way too far. You can't just get something good and then appreciate it for that - you have to have it repeatedly crammed down your throat until you are so sick of it you'll embrace anything that is just SOMETHING ELSE.
Everything has to be capitalized on, to squeeze every frigging drop of life out of it. Everything is to the extreme, hardcore, in your face, number one, top selling, smash hit. Every week I see a commercial about the "number one movie in America", or the "new hit series" that has only aired two episodes. It is why a simple book like "Chicken Soup for the Soul" had every imaginable bastardization of it hit the market. That book may be pretty good, but I'll never read it because I am so SICK of seeing variations of that title. It's why the TV show The Osbournes was ruined after the first season. The first season was original, and genuinely funny. Now it is all engineered.
It can all be summed up by the geniuses behind The Simpsons. Last night they aired the episode of Poochie the Dog. Spiderman is becoming Poochie, just like Batman did, just like Star Wars did, just like 99% of all movies and music are today. We live in a world of Poochies.