Sony has had the rights for like 20 years and produced....3 good movies. Objectively good movies. Let's say 4. Let's say 2 out of the 4 ("Spider-Man 2" and "Spider-Verse") are great. That's objectively not a good track record.
How is it not a "good track record" ? Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 both broke records at the box office, some records that still stand to this day. They were both critically acclaimed and audiences loved them. Again, they broke records and it wasn't even close.. the shyt those movies did at the BO was unheard of in those days and if you adjust for inflation it's very impressive.
Spider-Man 3 was disliked by many people, at least the Venom shyt was. I believe critics still gave it favorable reviews even if I disagree. That adjusted for inflation would still be over a billion dollars at the box office.
So any way you look at it the trilogy was widely successful and it's indisputable.
The Garfield movies didn't do as well as they wanted. They didn't "flop" at all.. they didn't do what they wanted them to do and the team behind them was creatively bankrupt. I never said they weren't.
Spider-Man Into the Spiderverse is a Sony production. It was only a $90M budget. It made well over $300 million. It also won an Oscar and it's known as the best Spider-Man movie ever. It's not just "good"... it's a classic in every sense.
Venom, I didn't like it too much but it's not about me. It's not about you. It has a 80% approval on RT. Critics hated it, audiences you can't really say they hated it. It also made near $900M at the box office. Very successful.
My point is Sony's track record is actually very impressive and they have classics in there.. don't tell me people argued differently, the reason I've been in here replying back and forth is because people have been saying exactly what I said they've been saying..
.. Tell me which part of what I wrote isn't facts.
