Why is Sony so fucking retarded?

>literally make one of the most high praised spiderman movies ever
>It wins Emmy
>Get rid of everybody who made it possible
>And replace them with shit tier interns

Is there literally nothing good that can happen to spiderman?Is he really cursed?

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 146K)

Sony absolutely is retarded. They made The Emoji Movie and started fucking the PS4 and possibly the PS5.

Wait, what? How do you know that?

>>literally make one of the most high praised spiderman movies ever
only in the US, bombed everywhere

[citation needed]

The idea is that all you have to do is discover the right hook, or idea or gimmick and you're garanteed money. So long as you have one you don't need to worry about who you have working on your product, because the gimmick is magic.The audience loves the gimmick, and the gimmick is so simple you could give it to anyone and they could make you a marketable product with it.
They think they've got that with Spiderverse at the moment. From their perspective its something absolutely chock full of wonderful magical gimmicks. And all studios are prone to make bad decisions when they think they've found their foolproof get rich formula, but Sony seems to go in particularly hard for it.

That's two different departments but I am inclined to agree.

At least PlayStation's problems can be traced to its move from Japan to San Francisco.

Who are you supposed to trust in making high level decisions?
The people you paid to do the work or the people who put in the money to hire the people who do the work?
If the people with money funded the first successful work, that can only mean they have qualifications to pick who they want to give money to for the next work.

seconding, what happened?

>Who are you supposed to trust about how to make a good film? People that make good films or boards of executives?
Are you trolling?

The board decides who to give money to, without the money, the film can't be made. The board makes good business decisions, there's no reason for them to want to fund a bad film.

Praise =/= box office

Execs don't yet understand how clued in modern audiences are because of the audience. They think that because people like the first one, they can skimp on the second one and people will still see it, but that's not how this shit works anymore.

Almost everyone in Hollywood who actually decides who works on what is 20+ years behind the curve. Feige is the only big exception, and that's why he's been so monumentally successful.

Amy Pascal has a very hit or miss record, and that's putting it kindly.

>no reason for them to want to fund a bad film
That's very semantic. It depends on what a "bad film" means to them.

user that's exactly why 3D animations are so good. You can fire the nameless people and replace them with foreigners one they've developed a new IP or notable series.

You can't fire a Glen Keane or Jacques Muller (RIP) without suffering huge animation quality drops and press coverage baggage.

Do you know any of the animators off hand from the recent Disney/Pixar flicks? I can only think back on Tangled how Glen or his daughter was involved.

Jin Kim is another name that pops to mind but he's not involved in the animation.

if no one cared for the first who will care for a sequel

This

I was talking about the writers and idea guys that got replaced

This. It’s this exactly.
I used to do paper and gruntwork for Hollywood types, not big studios but lots of smaller ones. The thing to note about producers is that almost all of them to a man are not creators or creative individuals. They pay creators to create, but they don’t understand why certain things are successful or funny or entertaining because they largely don’t have a creative bone in their bodies.

Yeah. Any one of us could've told you that putting the Russo brothers on your big event movies after Winter Soldier was a great idea, but if it was still Perlmutter in charge of the financials, he probably would've grabbed some Hallmark Channel director.

Even if I agreed with your premise Sony have proven themselves financially incompetent with most of their slate.

Not to mention they allowed marvel to take their stake in Spidey merch when negotiating for full profits and creative control of the amazing Spider-Man franchise abortion.

>The board makes good business decisions, there's no reason for them to want to fund a bad film.
Except there are enough bad films, shit sequels and terrible decision-making examples to last years so what you just said not only doesn't apply but is demonstrably wrong. They don't fund what they think is good, they fund what they think will give them money and even then it's hit or miss because they won't know if it really makes any cash until it hits. Board execs for the most part have garbage taste and should never be allowed to meddle with creative decisions because they're more interested in marketing and PR stunts than telling a compelling story. Just so happens that a compelling story and good execution are what make hits, not changing the script to be kid friendly and PR so you can flex at the next press conference.

The Emoji Movie made a lot of money though.

Attached: devil's advocate.jpg (640x360, 23K)

This

They didn't get rid of anyone. Lord and Miller are just stupidly high profile and busy with 20 different projects.

And yet they still can't revive a dead tv show.

Did you reply to the wrong post?

I too want to hear more because if this is true I am fearful of them making a sequel now.

Can Neo or John Wick beat the devil?