If Spider-Man: Far From Home doesn't make a billion (which it will), Sony is no longer contractually obligated to work with Marvel

Status
Not open for further replies.

ManaByte

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,265
Southern California
The source on this is The Ankler, who was the same guy who said Kathleen Kennedy would be FIRED right before she signed a three year contract extension:
"While Kathleen Kennedy worked wonders relaunching this property from the abyss of the Lucas prequel trilogy and turning it into a bigger than ever all-devouring cultural force, there has to be more than some thought that it's time for new blood at the helm. The talk out there is of a September changing of the guards. We'll see."
 

Kindekuma

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,597
If it DOESNT make a billion then can Sony scrap Holland so we can have our glorious Toby back?
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
28,238
it's really weird then that Marvel is setting up this Spider-Man to be a major player in the next phase of movies when they barely have a hold of him.
I kinda feel like that's half the point. They're tying him in so inextricably to the rest of the universe that cutting him out would do more damage to the brand than leaving him in. Essentially a suicide pill setup for Sony.
 

Grunge_Hamster

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
3,587
Sounds like the Zelda timeline :v

Spider-Man doesn't get 1 B at Box Office -> The hero is defeated -> The Decline of Spider-Man franchise and the last great Spider-Man film.
(A Venom to the Past)

Spider-Man gets 1 B at Box Office -> The hero is triumphant -> MCU Era (The Spidey Waker)

Does Sony also own Miguel, Gwen and Miles?
Sadly yes.

Probably even Anya Corazon aka Araña, and Jessica Drew aka Spider-Woman.

Yes. Which is crazy to me. Those characters weren’t around when that wacky deal was made.
One interesting bit about that, concerning the creation of Gwendolyn Poole aka Gwenpool:
"The last thing we ever expected was for [the variant] to go viral," reflected Antos in an exclusive interview with CBR at the 2019 Emerald City Comic-Con. "Within weeks of that cover being released, there was fan art, there was cosplay. That didn't happen with any of the other covers. [But] Fox owned Deadpool and Sony owns Gwen Stacy. That's why she was Gwendolyn Poole. That's why she actually debuted in Howard the Duck. She had her debut in an issue that was a Marvel property."
 

kiguel182

Member
Oct 31, 2017
3,251
I’ll be really sad if we only get one more Holland/Marvel Spider Man.

You can make at least two trilogies with this cast.
 

Psychoward

Member
Nov 7, 2017
16,161
Sony should stick to Spiderverse sequels and spinoffs and completely ignore live action Spidey.

Spiderverse is the best spiderman movie ever but Venom and ASM 1 and 2 were ass and their ideas for the future were even worse.
 

RDreamer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,327
Why would Sony ever want to get full creative control back when they can just let Marvel make actual well made movies that bring in way more money for Sony?
Each individual one in the MCU makes more money but Marvel can’t/wouldn’t want like 2 or 3 spider-man movies per year or something. They need room for others. Sony would, and combined that could make more even if mediocre.
 

McScroggz

The Fallen
Jan 11, 2018
2,400
So long as Marvel can continue to make Spider-Man movies and involve them in the MCU how the want, I’m happy. It’s when Sony decides to wrest crontrol form Marvel and make their own movie or try and limit his appearances in other films that I’ll be frustrated.
 

NekoFever

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,792
So Holland has one more movie, and then he either renegotiates, or Holland-Spidey is out of the MCU? Am I reading that correctly?
He doesn’t necessarily need a multi-film deal; they can always do deals on a film-by-film basis. But the studio/s will be keen to get him onto a longer deal because a rolling deal gives the actor a lot of pull in terms of negotiating money. I believe that’s what RDJ was doing for his last few, which is why he was on such ridiculous money.

Does Sony also own Miguel, Gwen and Miles?
The list isn’t publicly known but it’s basically anyone predominantly associated with Spider-Man, and since those characters have already been in Sony-produced movies (live action or animated), it’s a safe bet.

I’d assume that if Marvel owned one of the non-Parker Spider-Men they’d have already used that one in the MCU as it would be easier than dealing with a third party.
 

Advc

Member
Nov 3, 2017
2,016
Just give me Spider Man 4 by Sam Raimi and i'll be good tbh. Either Sony or Marvel.
 

Plasma

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,054
Why would Sony ever want to get full creative control back when they can just let Marvel make actual well made movies that bring in way more money for Sony?
Yeah it doesn't make sense to me, not when they have stuff like Spider-Verse and Venom which they can make in the years that there isn't a MCU Spider-Man.
 

Phantom_Snake

The Fallen
Jul 26, 2018
212
Montana
With it looking like Spider-Man being one of the main faces of the MCU going forward, I have a feeling Disney/Marvel will buy the rights back when the contract expires.
 

Volimar

Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
10,513
Official Staff Communication
Given this news is based on an unrelaible source, we're closing the thread. If a trustworthy source confirms the news feel free to remake the thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.