Disney-Sony Standoff Ends Marvel Studios & Kevin Feige’s Involvement In ‘Spider-Man’

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aprikurt

Nintendo Die-rect
Member
Oct 29, 2017
13,800
I don't care about all the corporate posturing, all I know is this:

Is one of the most emotionally satisfying moments in superhero films, and received the largest cheer at my theater at midnight. Tom Holland is an absolute treasure. I just want this sorted out. It genuinely puts a downer on these movies for me.
 

NotLiquid

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,853
i hate cinematic universes. if superhero movies go back to being standalone, i'll probably start watching them again.

good on Sony for not giving into Disney
If you don't think Sony are going to try setting up their own cinematic universe again you're in for a rude awakening. It's already happening with Morbius.
 

UltraMagnus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,560
If anything Spidey leaving the MCU likely will be a nice sized windfall for Holland.

His agent now can be far more aggressive in contract demands because Sony definitely won't want to lose him.

He probably stands to pocket an extra $5 million or more a film now, if I was his agent I'd be pushing hard for not only upfront salary but backend points which is where you can make the real big money.

With the MCU they could always say "well we can cast anyone as Spider-Man because we have the MCU safety net".

For his bank account this is likely very good for Holland, his bargaining position for salary is significantly better today than a week ago.
 

Siggy-P

Avenger
Mar 18, 2018
9,929
I don't care about all the corporate posturing, all I know is this:

Is one of the most emotionally satisfying moments in superhero films, and received the largest cheer at my theater at midnight. Tom Holland is an absolute treasure. I just want this sorted out. It genuinely puts a downer on these movies for me.
I will actually give my personal opinion here and everyone is free to disagree with me. I wish they hadn't revealed him this way, but instead revealed him when he finds Tony again in exactly the way they do it.
 

Laserdisk

User requested ban
Banned
May 11, 2018
8,871
UK
If anything Spidey leaving the MCU likely will be a nice sized windfall for Holland.

His agent now can be far more aggressive in contract demands because Sony definitely won't want to lose him.

He probably stands to pocket an extra $5 million or more a film now, if I was his agent I'd be pushing hard for not only upfront salary but backend points which is where you can make the real big money.
He is already shooing Uncharted for them soon.
 

Bundy

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
20,931

RDreamer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,407
Being, say, Cyclops in the MCU would probably be preferable to being Spider Man in the no doubt middling Spidey universe Sony will try to set up.
And Sony will pay him more right now because he has leverage. You think he’ll burn his bridge at Sony at the hope of maybe playing cyclops or something down the road? He’d have to have a real shit agent to advise that.

Get paid now, keep things good with Sony and hell if the next movies tank he can still join the MCU just the same. MCU won’t be adding X-men and stuff for a while anyway.
 

Ocarina_117

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,311
I didn't realise the staff post was in regards to him.

People also shouldn't be posting his tweets here then without context if that's what'll happen.
Yup. It counts as antagonising a member of the forum.

Even though hes misrepresenting information to target a riled up fanbase of one corporation against another.

His whole Twitter timeline has been an embarrassment and completely lacking of self awareness.
 

N. Tyranno

Member
Nov 6, 2017
3,023
disney's "supposed" greed. sony is out to make a profit. they always have. you even write off disney as having "supposed" greed. that's how disney fans see disney: not as any other corporation but as their friend. disney is good at public image.
Disney is a corporation. A corporation is going to corporate. The issue is that people are acting like Sony is any different; my point is that the issue of money isn't relevant here and people are focusing on Disney's history of prioritizing it over Sony's. You can't condemn Disney while simultaneously dismissing Tom Rothman's long history of alienating and screwing over creatives as "just business", especially when we're talking about the issue of how the Spider-Man franchise is going to be factored in moving forward.
 

Aprikurt

Nintendo Die-rect
Member
Oct 29, 2017
13,800
I will actually give my personal opinion here and everyone is free to disagree with me. I wish they hadn't revealed him this way, but instead revealed him when he finds Tony again in exactly the way they do it.
Yeah, I guess they could have made more out of the moment. But it was part of a larger moment of all the heroes coming back simultaneously.

It's just that triumphant Tom Holland smile, I can't handle it.
 

UltraMagnus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,560
Disney is a corporation. A corporation is going to corporate. The issue is that people are acting like Sony is any different; my point is that the issue of money isn't relevant here and people are focusing on Disney's history of prioritizing it over Sony's. You can't condemn Disney while simultaneously dismissing Tom Rothman's long history of alienating and screwing over creatives as "just business", especially when we're talking about the issue of how the Spider-Man franchise is going to be factored in moving forward.
Ownership is ownership.

Sony owns the Spider-Man film rights. No one is obligated to sell things "just because it'd be good!" ... I can't just walk into your home and demand you hand over 50% of your property because we had some mutually beneficial property transactions or something.

The expectation here is just out of whack. Sony has every right to say "fuck no" to gifting away significant control and ownership over their top film franchise.

Would Nintendo grant Niantic significant control over the Pokemon franchise just because Pokemon Go was such a huge hit? No, that's not even an option that would ever even be on the table for discussion.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Oct 25, 2017
55,753
What I've learned over the last 48 hours:

- Fans do not know what the stock market is

- Fans do not know what business is

Tony Stark did not travel back in time to get the infinity stones just so Sony could fuck it up by taking Spider Man out of the mcu. U CANT JUST TAKE 2$ OFF SONY STOCK FOR A DAY AFTER WE'VE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH IT. #SaveSonyStockGiveBackSpiderMan
 

Stiler

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
6,659
I don't get this personification of mega-corps.

I cant give 1 rats butt about putting myself in Sony's shoes.

I can think/ look at it from a pragmatic sense ...
Makes sense that Disney, now with the FOX Marvel IPs in the bank, would want controlling interest in Spider Man films moving forward. Being a 50/50 investor (No clue about returns but I'd GUESS >"5% opening weekend") in ALL Spider Man related movies would give them far more control over the IPs and allow them to be under the MCU. As it stands now they have to work around Sony's wants for SM films and Sony can just be stupid ambiguous about how connected their side things are to the MCU, confusing fans and boosting their bo numbers without giving Disney shit. They also delivered Sony's top grossing film and highest grossing SM film for basically free, seems silly for them to want to keep making billion dollar hits for basically free when that time and energy could go towards things they own.

And unlike before Marvel now has a gold mine in the form of the X-Men just waiting to be realized as well as many ways to set up new young heroes. They're not in the same situation as before and if Sony walks they still make money from w/e SM movie they dick up down the road because of the toys. It will always be their goal to get control of the IP..

Makes sense for Sony to say no, because they would be giving up creative control of their biggest IP just for Disney to steam roll everything into their vision. For better or worse they seem to have great interest in exhorting their ideas on SM films, something that's lead to the down fall of the IP in their hands but they're not likely to stop doing it because they want credit for any success for w/e reason, be it personal or profession gain. SM1-2 were great in spite of that, with 3 they dicked it up so bad that the whole thing just crumbled and the chased off Sam. Then we get ASM1-2 that got the full dicking from the start, turned out to be fucking bad films that also cost WAY too much to make.

So really, as a bystander and fan, it's really about what you want to get.
I remember the days of ASM ... I remember wishing SM was in the MCU. I remember talking with friends about how we just don't think we would ever get a good live actions SM film with Sony. So IDGAF, it's clear to me that Sony needs an adult in the room to make some good live action SM films FOR them and if they go at it alone I fully expect ASM level trash.

It's just Megacorps wanting power and money and as it stands I prefer the outcome of having SM be in the MCU more than what was offered before.

If there's anyone I think would be better off "giving" to make this work it's Disney, they don't NEED SM like Sony does as it's their biggest thing so they want to keep dicking it up with their ideas. But I also understand that Disney may well see it as more worth to cut them off from the MCU then to keep things this way and see if they change their mind down the line.
Making good Spiderman films with Sony and using him in the MCU was good for both companies.

Disney raked in ALL The money from merchandise (even if it was Sony's standalone spiderman film rather then an avengers). They also got all money from the avengers films with Spiderman in them, Sony didn't get jack from that.


By having Spiderman movies be good, and fit with the MCU Disney increases the whole properties value which in the end means more money for them, so it wasn't really like they were making these themselves either, Sony was the one who footed the bill for the movie development, IIRC Disney had to pay 35 million for each movie (per the merchandise agreement) but if the movie makes over $750 million that goes down, so they pay even less.
 

N. Tyranno

Member
Nov 6, 2017
3,023
Ownership is ownership.

Sony owns the Spider-Man film rights. No one is obligated to sell things "just because it'd be good!" ... I can't just walk into your home and demand you hand over 50% of your property because we had some mutually beneficial property transactions or something.

The expectation here is just out of whack. Sony has every right to say "fuck no" to gifting away significant control and ownership over their top film franchise.

Would Nintendo grant Niantic significant control over the Pokemon franchise just because Pokemon Go was such a huge hit? No, that's not even an option that would ever even be on the table for discussion.
Sony is more like Niantic in regards to how these partnerships actually function, but in a sense, you're right. But at the same time, one is allowed to have an opinion on the management that's ultimately left in charge of these characters, and how well they're going to be doing with it. And frankly, I don't feel that people like Rothman are to be trusted with that task.

Just like how one is allowed to have the opinion that the more likely number of 30 % co-financing (different from profit) is reasonable and that Sony made an objectively bad decision and that the alternative would have ultimately served them and all parties involved better in the long-term.
 

GreenMamba

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,047
Like I seriously cannot believe we're in the middle of witnessing corporate meddling fucking up yet another Spider-Man series.

Just how cursed is this property. Fuck this makes me angry.
 

UltraMagnus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,560
Sony is more like Niantic in regards to how these partnerships actually function, but in a sense, you're right. But at the same time, one is allowed to have an opinion on the management that's ultimately left in charge of these characters, and how well they're going to be doing with it. And frankly, I don't feel that people like Rothman are to be trusted with that task.

Just like how one is allowed to have the opinion that the more likely number of 30 % co-financing (different from profit) is reasonable and that Sony made an objectively bad decision and that the alternative would have ultimately served them and all parties involved better in the long-term.
The whole financing thing is a red herring. That's actually what Marvel wants ... control over the Spider-Man and they get that if Sony agrees to let them co-finance.

Sony doesn't need help financing Spider-Man movies, there's tons on financiers available to them for a Spider-Man movie.

And quite frankly I don't think Disney really cares that much about the box office cut ... it was a clever way to try and sucker Sony into handing over 1/2 the financing which would in turn give them considerable control over Sony's franchise. That's what they really wanted, Sony didn't take the bait.
 

viskod

Member
Nov 9, 2017
2,292
If anything Spidey leaving the MCU likely will be a nice sized windfall for Holland.

His agent now can be far more aggressive in contract demands because Sony definitely won't want to lose him.

He probably stands to pocket an extra $5 million or more a film now, if I was his agent I'd be pushing hard for not only upfront salary but backend points which is where you can make the real big money.

With the MCU they could always say "well we can cast anyone as Spider-Man because we have the MCU safety net".

For his bank account this is likely very good for Holland, his bargaining position for salary is significantly better today than a week ago.
Just the opposite really.

Marvel and Disney don't like recasting characters because of the connected universe. Without that extra need for continuity Sony can tell him to fuck off.
 

Yasuke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,084
Nope. The issue is getting a producer that can rein costs in so they can profit. The previous spider man movies did well enough despite being poorer quality. Venom did well despite being poorer quality. The IP is such that people almost inherently give a damn.
You must don’t know who is currently in charge of Sony Pictures.

And those previous Spider-Man movies came out in an old world with old rules. Venom came out at a time when Spidey was known to be an Avenger, and a healthy chunk of the audience thought the Venom movie was related to that, and also just wanted to see that old Spidey character they liked.

The movie was bad, and if a split does indeed happen, there is no guarantee interest remains anywhere near as high what it once was, for Venom or Spidey.

The risk really is too great for Sony. They don’t have much of a leg to stand on here.
 

N. Tyranno

Member
Nov 6, 2017
3,023
The whole financing thing is a red herring. That's actually what Marvel wants ... control over the Spider-Man and they get that if Sony agrees to let them co-finance.

Sony doesn't need help financing Spider-Man movies, there's tons on financiers available to them for a Spider-Man movie.

And quite frankly I don't think Disney really cares that much about the box office cut ... it was a clever way to try and sucker Sony into handing over 1/2 the financing which would in turn give them considerable control over Sony's franchise.
Okay?

Sony would have still ended up disproportionately benefitting from it and there's a greater likelihood that Venom and whatever else they do would be critically well received instead of highly divisive and people wondering whether or not they'll be able to keep it up.

But I suppose if you want me to say that Sony is free to make decisions that I think are pants on head stupid, then yes, they are legally and ethically allowed to do that.
 

UltraMagnus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,560
Just the opposite really.

Marvel and Disney don't like recasting characters because of the connected universe. Without that extra need for continuity Sony can tell him to fuck off.
I doubt they want to upset the apple cart any more than it is. Holland clearly works well as Spider-Man, if having him in the picture budgeted at $185 million requires $5 mill more a pic, or some back end points ... that's a small price to pay.

Sony doesn't want to reboot because they already know how that went with the Amazing series ... not so great.

No chance they take that risk over (in the grand scheme of things) a few million dollars more for Holland.
 

N. Tyranno

Member
Nov 6, 2017
3,023
Just the opposite really.

Marvel and Disney don't like recasting characters because of the connected universe. Without that extra need for continuity Sony can tell him to fuck off.
Sony and Rothman both don't have a very good history with respecting talent, yeah, regardless of whatever Disney's reputation is in that area.
 

Sephzilla

Herald of Stoptimus Crime
Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,531
Just the opposite really.

Marvel and Disney don't like recasting characters because of the connected universe. Without that extra need for continuity Sony can tell him to fuck off.
Sony losing Holland would mean they're basically back to square one with Spider-Man and would have to rebuild a lot of the momentum the MCU movies established. I don't think they really want to have to do that.

Plus there have been a few recastings in the MCU
 

Callibretto

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,405
Indonesia
The whole financing thing is a red herring. That's actually what Marvel wants ... control over the Spider-Man and they get that if Sony agrees to let them co-finance.

Sony doesn't need help financing Spider-Man movies, there's tons on financiers available to them for a Spider-Man movie.

And quite frankly I don't think Disney really cares that much about the box office cut ... it was a clever way to try and sucker Sony into handing over 1/2 the financing which would in turn give them considerable control over Sony's franchise. That's what they really wanted, Sony didn't take the bait.
Sony want their spin off to be in mcu, why not make a deal where Marvel make or at least have some creative input on all the spin off too. That's what Marvel want too. I imagine it must be frustrating for Marvel wanting to use certain villain like Kraven and I assume Sony not letting them because they're planning Kraven movie.
 

Kyoufu

Member
Oct 26, 2017
14,033
I doubt they want to upset the apple cart any more than it is. Holland clearly works well as Spider-Man, if having him in the picture budgeted at $185 million requires $5 mill more a pic, or some back end points ... that's a small price to pay.

Sony doesn't want to reboot because they already know how that went with the Amazing series ... not so great.

No chance they take that risk over (in the grand scheme of things) a few million dollars more for Holland.
Tom Holland probably won't even want to return to non-MCU anyway. He said he's up for a clash against Venom but only of it's part of the MCU because he doesn't want to give up that ticket.

Well guess what, that ticket has been given up. He even unfollowed Sony lol.
 

UltraMagnus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,560
Sony want their spin off to be in mcu, why not make a deal where Marvel make or at least have some creative input on all the spin off too. That's what Marvel want too. I imagine it must be frustrating for Marvel wanting to use certain villain like Kraven and I assume Sony not letting them because they're planning Kraven movie.
Wanting and "demanding" are two different things. Of course they'd like Venom in the MCU, why not.

But what Disney is asking for here is completely different, handing over a significant portion of the Spider-Man IP entirely is something that Sony reasonably can't do.

No studio would make that deal, no company with a valuable entertainment property would ever do that. I doubt Nintendo could even get Sega to do something like this with Sonic.
 

Deleted member 16452

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,276
This thread has run its course, and so we're locking it. You're welcome to continue discussion in any of the relevant community threads. If there is new news, a new thread can be created.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.