Sony doesn’t have many big franchises but the one they do have has made a lot of money to date. Naturally that means they gotta start milking that cow dry.
> […] Sony has done very well by the “Spider-Man” franchise. Its 2012 reboot, “The Amazing Spider-Man,” starring Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, grossed $752 million worldwide, and the movie series is by far the studio’s most profitable. (Sony Pictures continues to share in the riches of the ongoing James Bond films, but that property is controlled by MGM, so the profit pool is far smaller.)
> With a production budget of approximately $200 million, the next “Spider-Man” sequel, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” is due out May 2.
> Meanwhile, SPE co-chairman Amy Pascal is spinning Spider-Man’s web ever larger, taking a page from Marvel Entertainment’s superhero movie playbook. “We are expanding the ‘Spider-Man’ universe into ‘The Sinister Six’ and ‘Venom,’ so that we have ‘Spider-Man’ movies every year,” Pascal says.
For a third time, _ugh_. I get that Sony thinks it’s taking a page from Marvel’s playbook here but, well, its only one page out of a greater plan. Spider-Man doesn’t have enough going for him to build a universe out of. It’s why he interacts with so many other heroes in the comics. It’s why he’s an Avenger in the comics. He’s just one guy with a big rogues gallery.
Marvel has certainly built up an impressive universe but you know what the key to that is? _Variety_. Each Marvel character offers a different sort of movie, and each director they bring on board offers their own vision. Want to watch some SciFi? _Iron Man_. want to watch some Fantasy? _Thor_. Want to see a detective movie? _Shane Black_ directed Iron Man Three. Want to see some action? _Captain America_. I could go on but really the point is that Marvel’s playbook has multiple pages and they only work well _together_. Any one of them might last you for a while but eventually you’re just going to end up beating a dead horse.
How’s that for metaphor mixing?