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

Status
Not open for further replies.

fiendcode

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,992
I haven't seen Disney do anything like that with contracts that are the length of time that Game Contracts require. And the production time required for Games would suggest that the deal wasn't for a one off game. Especially in Insomniac's case as the head of Marvel Games specifically talked about how not giving previous games enough time hurt their quality which was something they looked to avoid going forward. Marvel's creative control in terms of games wouldn't extend to the ability to alter the contract on the spot without some pretty big repercussions.

It just doesn't make sense that Disney would push to cancel Spidey's best game in years (if not ever) to leverage a completely different division that doesn't need the help. The relationship between Disney and Sony isn't anywhere near as contentious as the one between Disney and Fox had become.
Creative control isn't about altering or canceling contracts, it's about exercising creative authority and yes it can hobble or even sink projects. Ask Capcom about it.

And this is assuming there even is a contract for SM2 and Insomniac's already in production, neither of which are known so it's conjecture anyway. I mean I'd assume SEI got a multigame contract (I'd assume the same for Nintendo with MUA too) but then I'd have also thought Marvel and SP had worked out a multifilm deal already (like a trilogy) and apparently that didn't happen. Until we know this for sure you can't really keep repeating "contract!" as if that insulates everything on Sony's end. As always with contracts, if there's a contract, it's more complicated than that.

And making sense isn't relevant with Disney hardball. Perlmutter will cut off his nose to spite his face, that's exactly how it went with the X-Men/FF ban that resulted in Marvel sinking licensing that they took 100% on for years. It's all about devaluing the brand competitively and using that for leverage. We've seen it happen and it could easily happen again.
 
Oct 28, 2017
8,956
I think Spider-Man was going to be an important fixture in the next phase of the MCU but I doubt Feige would have placed all the eggs in that one basket given the tenuous nature of the deal between the two studios. Also, the MCU has HUGE characters they can pivot to, including Captain Marvel and Black Panther, not to mention the new characters being introduced in Phase 4.
 

Hero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,527
I don't see why you'd think superhero movies only compete with superhero movies I guess.

SM3 made boat loads of money.

Yes, I think Arad is harmful to the brand, and Feige adds to the brand, but the Spider-Man brand still had huge value back when the deal was done. That's why Disney asked for so little in the first place. Because they knew Spider-Man would bring in more viewers to the MCU.
SM3 made boat loads of money riding the hype and goodwill from SM1+2. SM3 actually did LESS domestically than SM2 and only achieved higher profitability due to the rising international market, most of which they receive a lesser cut from.

Yes, the SM brand has and almost always will be valuable, but there's such a thing as brand damage and opportunity cost. You're right, Disney/Feige knew that if they could get SM in the MCU it would be a huge draw and why they did it for a pittance. It makes complete sense that Disney would want to renegotiate the terms after proving their worth by making Far From Home the highest grossing Sony movie ever. It's just silly because this MCU Spider-Man is beloved by the fans, they've proven to be a draw for both companies, and I highly doubt another reboot would go over well with audiences.
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,589
Ah sorry, I thought we were talking about the next ones. Yeah they didn't finance those, although I would argue that Marvel Studios producing a movie of another studio's IP for miniscule profit instead of working on a project fully owned by Marvel does have a cost. Marvel Studios potentially lost hundreds of millions of dollars by working on Sony IP instead of a new MCU film.
Sure, there's an opportunity cost (both time spent, and having to have a spot for it on the crowded schedule). But I doubt their profits were "minuscule." Just less.
 

MillionIII

Member
Sep 11, 2018
3,987
True but Sony has to be willing to relinquish those rights and currently, they want to continue making comic book films. Even without the MCU Spider-Man can generate hundreds of millions of dollars in potential revenue (or more) and Sony knows that even if they aren't an official part of he MCU they can piggyback off it indirectly and reap the benefits.

Personally, I don't think Sony would sell the rights back unless they were in such dire financial straights that they had no other choice.
They could potentially offer them billions of dollars for those rights, an offer Sony would actually be dumb to refuse.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,084
I don't think asking to go in 50/50 on the Spider Man franchise, when the current success of Spider Man is 100% because of your efforts and the other company has basically just been holding your flagship character hostage for money.
Holding it hostage? They have the film rights. Are they supposed to just give it away?
 

GreenMamba

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,020
Fuck everything.

Get Disney's and Sony's stuffed shirts back in a room and lock them in it until they reach a deal.
 

VeePs

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,283
Holding it hostage? They have the film rights. Are they supposed to just give it away?
Yes. Sony should be glad to work with disney. Check the receipts. Spider-Man 1-3 sucked. ASM 1 and 2 made no profit. Venom? It was a bomb. It totally did not make more money for Sony than Homecoming did. Sony? They should be glad to working with Disney. Sony. Please do the right thing and hand over all the rights to Disney. Thank you.

/s
 

phanphare

Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,865
I didn't say that's its wrong, every company does it. They rely on marketing and word of mouth to get people to consume a product. The problem is once fans stop realizing that they are being taken advantage of.
wow, what a shocking revelation that a company making entertainment products for public consumption relies on targeted public awareness that their product exists and positive feedback from the public that their product is quality for it to prosper

what an absolutely novel assertion
 

bossmonkey

Avenger
Nov 9, 2017
1,252
When you get down to it though it sucks for Disney but Sony is going to take the big hit here. Marvel can just ignore anything that happened in FFH and keep right on trucking. We really weren't expecting to see Spiderman in a cross over until at least Phase 5 anyway so that's a pretty easy ignore. Sony is going to struggle though because their Spiderman is so ingrained into the MCU and they've pissed off all of the MCU faithful that went out to see FFH. They're back to Amazing Spiderman 2 levels of goodwill which is a really bad thing for them.
 

Richiek

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,402
And making sense isn't relevant with Disney hardball. Perlmutter will cut off his nose to spite his face, that's exactly how it went with the X-Men/FF ban that resulted in Marvel sinking licensing that they took 100% on for years. It's all about devaluing the brand competitively and using that for leverage. We've seen it happen and it could easily happen again.
Perlmutter doesn’t control Marvel Studios, and hasn’t for years.
 
Oct 28, 2017
8,956
They could potentially offer them billions of dollars for those rights, an offer Sony would actually be dumb to refuse.
Oh I agree with you entirely. The problem is Sony Pictures is and has almost always been a clusterfuck of a studio.

There's a fascinating read called The Big Picture that deals with the ever-changing topography of the film business and it is heavily centered on Sony Pictures successes and myriad of failures.
 

Ocarina_117

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,260
How is that childish?

These actors were part of the biggest, most profitable cinematic franchise in history. Being removed from that - especially in this day and age when franchise trumps personal celebrity branding - would be quite disconcerting.
Sony signs their cheques at the end of the day 🤷🏾‍♂️ they knew it was a potentially volatile situation.

They're just perpetuating the narrative the Disney are the victims here.
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,589
When you get down to it though it sucks for Disney but Sony is going to take the big hit here. Marvel can just ignore anything that happened in FFH and keep right on trucking. We really weren't expecting to see Spiderman in a cross over until at least Phase 5 anyway so that's a pretty easy ignore. Sony is going to struggle though because their Spiderman is so ingrained into the MCU and they've pissed off all of the MCU faithful that went out to see FFH. They're back to Amazing Spiderman 2 levels of goodwill which is a really bad thing for them.
I thought ASM1 was deadly dull and skipped ASM2, but I will be there day one for the next Holland Spidey movie, MCU or not.

The MCU connections have been the worst aspects of the the Holland movies by a mile.
 

Hercule

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,304
Sony signs their cheques at the end of the day 🤷🏾‍♂️ they knew it was a potentially volatile situation.

They're just perpetuating the narrative the Disney are the victims here.
Imagine being part of the MCU as a leading lady only to be downgraded to the Sony Spider-Man universe. I would be extremely disappointed.

I love people who don't care about the money and follow their heart
 

Arthands

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,045
a shame that Sony is remaining greedy despite them having 0 capability of making a profitable good Spider-Man movie. For the sake of everyone they should return Spider-Man movie to Marvel.
 
Oct 28, 2017
8,956
Sony signs their cheques at the end of the day 🤷🏾‍♂️ they knew it was a potentially volatile situation.

They're just perpetuating the narrative the Disney are the victims here.
You do realize that star-driven films are almost completely dead, right? That currently the most viable product in film are franchises?

These actors are not Sony’s automatons; they have every right to be publicly annoyed with losing out on the MCU.

And FYI, if Sony fucks up and the next spider-Man bombs or underperforms, they’ll reboot and toss aside these current actors without hesitation.

They don’t owe Sony a thing.
 

Ocarina_117

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,260
User Banned (1 day): Antagonizing another user
Imagine being part of the MCU as a leading lady only to be downgraded to the Sony Spider-Man universe. I would be extremely disappointed.

I love people who don't care about the money and follow their heart
Again, no fault of it lies with Sony when Disney are the ones attempting to strong arm.

They signed contracts and are paid by Sony. Same way footballers get criticised for social media childish ness when attempting to force a move to another club.

It just perpetuates that Disney can do no wrong. We've seen ManaByte "fake news" tweets go viral and it'll get messier from here.
 

Surakian

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
1,385
Sony signs their cheques at the end of the day 🤷🏾‍♂️ they knew it was a potentially volatile situation.

They're just perpetuating the narrative the Disney are the victims here.
Their contracts are already locked in so they can take whatever stance they want because they are still contractually obligated to do these films at whatever pay rate their contracts stipulate. They have a right to be upset when the Spider-Man films being connected to the MCU was giving them a wealth of opportunities and helping them establish connections with bigger stars and producers.

What is Sony going to do? Fire them for unfollowing them on social media? That’d be throwing oil onto a fire.

And in regards to Zendaya, Disney is where she got her start. She wasn’t going to burn any bridge with them lol
 

bossmonkey

Avenger
Nov 9, 2017
1,252
I thought ASM1 was deadly dull and skipped ASM2, but I will be there day one for the next Holland Spidey movie, MCU or not.

The MCU connections have been the worst aspects of the the Holland movies by a mile.
As I'm sure you can tell by my avatar, I really enjoyed those connections. I sat through ASM 1 and 2 in the theater or as i called them the amazingly creepy spiderman 1 and 2. I wasn't gonna be super jazzed with a third. If sony goes solo on the next Holland movie i'll probably pass. I love Holland's portrayal but man does Sony know how to screw the pooch on that license.
 

Regulus Tera

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,434
It's scary how many people think that Disney homogenizing the entire entertainment industry is a good thing.
these are the same people who later go into other threads talking about how big business has completely upended politics and how capitalism exploits the average man

but god forbid they touch their super hero films because then all semblance of social welfare goes out the window
 

genjiZERO

Member
Jan 27, 2019
686
Richmond
Fuck everything.

Get Disney's and Sony's stuffed shirts back in a room and lock them in it until they reach a deal.
They're come to an agreement. This is just all posturing.

How is that childish?

These actors were part of the biggest, most profitable cinematic franchise in history. Being removed from that - especially in this day and age when franchise trumps personal celebrity branding - would be quite disconcerting.
I'm not sure it's childish, but it comes across as using social media statements to shill for a corporation.
 

Devin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
821
Source?

We know Marvel has animated TV rights to Spider-Man, but I don't know about live action.
From 2011 (it's possible things have changed since then, but I don't believe it's public knowledge if they did change): https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/07/junderwood/1 Corp Dev/Spiderman/Executive Summary of All Deal Points/Executive Summary (Creative).pdf
RIGHTS: SPE has the exclusive right to utilize the “Spider-Man” character and the other Creative Elements listed in Paragraph 1 above to (a) develop and produce live action or animated theatrical motion pictures (each, a “Picture”) and live-action television series (and also animated television series with episodes longer than 44 minutes), during the Production Term, and (b) distribute, advertise and otherwise exploit in perpetuity any motion picture or television series that commenced production during the Production Term.
How would that be possible when the fiscal year of 2019 isn't over? The annual fiscal report for 2019 would not be released yet.
 

kiguel182

Member
Oct 31, 2017
4,438
I would like if Marvel had control of the characters they created. I don't think there's anything wrong with that and if the company hadn't sold those assets years ago it would be the reality.

That said, the idea that it's okay for Disney to own half the movie industry just because of Marvel is ridiculous. Yes those characters should be in control of Marvel since those are their characters in the end but losing Fox and trying to screw Sony Pictures to get there is not worth it.
 

Ploid 6.0

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,111
SM3 made boat loads of money riding the hype and goodwill from SM1+2. SM3 actually did LESS domestically than SM2 and only achieved higher profitability due to the rising international market, most of which they receive a lesser cut from.

Yes, the SM brand has and almost always will be valuable, but there's such a thing as brand damage and opportunity cost. You're right, Disney/Feige knew that if they could get SM in the MCU it would be a huge draw and why they did it for a pittance. It makes complete sense that Disney would want to renegotiate the terms after proving their worth by making Far From Home the highest grossing Sony movie ever. It's just silly because this MCU Spider-Man is beloved by the fans, they've proven to be a draw for both companies, and I highly doubt another reboot would go over well with audiences.
They don't have to reboot. They can and will likely still use Holland and whoever else. They just won't mention MCU stuff, or hint at it like the Netflix shows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.