To answer your question @hex even if a Spider-Man movie with Holland and Hardy as Venom sucked I would still mention the profit margin because I am simply answering the people who keep saying Sony can't do numbers... which there were many saying that. So I answered them.
I'm surprised that there isn't more talk about Garfield and Stone's chemistry. Only myself and someone else mentioned it in this thread, they were great together and the reason why I cannot just call those two movies trash....
Holland and Zendaya are cool tho. Tobey and Dunst were...ehh
That's cool....but who cares aboiut all that if the movies suck?
Are you gonna leave the theater like "well, that was ass....but at least I can win an argument on The Coli"?
I don't get it.
And I wouldn't say the Garfield movies were trash but they were the definition of
There hasn't been a good Sony live aciton Spidey movie since the 2nd Raimi one.
Fred.
Only reason I couldn't buy Maguire and dunst is because she was just too damn ugly
Only comes in handy here when you’re explaining whether a movie is a flop or not.
Which is exactly what I was doing and @hex wants to ignore the comments before my reply but aight
People said Spider-Man movies made by Sony would flop. I showed they wouldn't.
If people gonna talk shyt about something they know nothing about they deserved to get called on it. lol
That’s fair. Coli doesn’t always make the distinction between a movie they don’t like or a movie that does bad critically vs flop.
Them shyts with Jamie Foxx and that Garfield dude were horrible
Then they switched up and spoke on quality. I didn't think Venom was great either but if they wanna say it's a flop then that's wrong.
There's also an underlying assumption in a lot of arguments that Sony = bad and Disney = good as if Feige/Disney haven't released trash/forgettable movies.
Antman and the Wasp was a year ago