Well, Sony in the late 00's was desperate and hilariously kept floating largely due to Sony Pictures, so selling the merchandise rights was more telling of their financial health and management of the time. Yoshida, when he was CFO, said that was a dumb idea and regrettable decision Sony made.This is the same company/division that let the merch rights go for films. Let's not give them that much credit. But I'm looking at this in a few ways, mainly from the perspective that Sony does not plan to sell SPE at this time:
1) Post Amazing Spider-Man 2 the Spider-Man film brand is not as valuable as it once was (Not saying worthless, just not as valuable). They go to Marvel/Disney to make a deal. In order to take advantage of the MCU's popularity they agree to the collaberation providing that they still own the film rights, distribute, and get creative decisions (and get to use other Marvel characters they don't own). Disney/Marvel agreees in exchange for getting Spider-Man to be in some of their films, but they also want to take some precaution down the road to make sure the risk of losing Spider-Man in the MCU is minimized. They tell Sony they'll help reignite interest in Spider-Man (and maybe also allow use of other charaters in Sony projects, see Kingpin in Into The Spider-Verse), but Sony can be the only partner in this. Sony can't just make this deal so they can get enough value and allow the film rights to go elsewhere. Sony, desperate to get their top film franchsie back on track agrees to eliminate the transfer clause.
2) Assuming that the transfer clause was not eliminated during the original five film deal: Far From Home just became the first Spider-Man film to make a billion dollars. Into The Spider-Verse, which used a character that had to be licenced by Disney/Marvel (even if he's not a major reason why the film succeeded), is a critical success. Spider-Man was just featured in the highest grossing film of all time. And Marvel is allowing Sony's video game division, the big money maker, to probably make another sequel exclusive to their platforms. That's two dependencies on Disney/Marvel for success with the live action films, and two acts of good will to help out the projects Sony handles on their own. Renegotiations come in. Does Sony really want to cut ties with Marvel? We still don't know how Venom 2 and Morbius will perform. Sony's most profitable division could easily work a little bit longer with Marvel to get a few more million seller games providing both sides are happy. Why tank that relationship right now? Because that's a guaranteed way off hurting good will on the solo live-action spider-man films by rebooting. Any good will to get additional approved licenses for either the spider-verse films or the video games could disappear.
Disney/Marvel wants to make sure in the long run they aren't dealing with either Comcast or Warners (probably Comcast). They tell Sony eliminate the clause if you want to continue to work together. We're not helping you raise the value of the brand only for you to use it to sell the studio. (since as you said, Spider-Man's film rights are a big part of SPE).
Is that really worth it in Sony's eyes to tank a partnership that helps out mutliple divisions of their company? And potentially put the value of that license at risk by tanking it?
If Sony is lying about not selling SPE, sure. Point taken. But I still stand by point 1 in that case that Disney had to have taken some precautions and made the arguement about how much they contributed to raising the brand value a few years back. And we know how desperate SPE can be.
The video game stuff has nothing to do with movie side of things and it has been debunked many times and someone from insomniac had also clarified that they were offered to do any character from the Marvel universe and they chose Spider-Man. I am sure Sony and marvel games already signed a multi-game deal for Spider-Man because when the first one was announced in 2016, the head of marvel games said that the future of standalone Spider-Man console games is with Sony and insomniac.This is the same company/division that let the merch rights go for films. Let's not give them that much credit. But I'm looking at this in a few ways, mainly from the perspective that Sony does not plan to sell SPE at this time:
1) Post Amazing Spider-Man 2 the Spider-Man film brand is not as valuable as it once was (Not saying worthless, just not as valuable). They go to Marvel/Disney to make a deal. In order to take advantage of the MCU's popularity they agree to the collaberation providing that they still own the film rights, distribute, and get creative decisions (and get to use other Marvel characters they don't own). Disney/Marvel agreees in exchange for getting Spider-Man to be in some of their films, but they also want to take some precaution down the road to make sure the risk of losing Spider-Man in the MCU is minimized. They tell Sony they'll help reignite interest in Spider-Man (and maybe also allow use of other charaters in Sony projects, see Kingpin in Into The Spider-Verse), but Sony can be the only partner in this. Sony can't just make this deal so they can get enough value and allow the film rights to go elsewhere. Sony, desperate to get their top film franchsie back on track agrees to eliminate the transfer clause.
2) Assuming that the transfer clause was not eliminated during the original five film deal: Far From Home just became the first Spider-Man film to make a billion dollars. Into The Spider-Verse, which used a character that had to be licenced by Disney/Marvel (even if he's not a major reason why the film succeeded), is a critical success. Spider-Man was just featured in the highest grossing film of all time. And Marvel is allowing Sony's video game division, the big money maker, to probably make another sequel exclusive to their platforms. That's two dependencies on Disney/Marvel for success with the live action films, and two acts of good will to help out the projects Sony handles on their own. Renegotiations come in. Does Sony really want to cut ties with Marvel? We still don't know how Venom 2 and Morbius will perform. Sony's most profitable division could easily work a little bit longer with Marvel to get a few more million seller games providing both sides are happy. Why tank that relationship right now?
Well, Sony in the late 00's was desperate and hilariously kept floating largely due to Sony Pictures, so selling the merchandise rights was more telling of their financial health and management of the time. Yoshida, when he was CFO, said that was a dumb idea and regrettable decision Sony made.
At this point, Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters is a huge anchor for both its film and TV studio. I don't think with the turn around of Sony Pictures under Rothman and Vinciquerra, that they would prohibit the rights to Spider-Man from transferring in a sale. I could be wrong though, who knows.
This is the same company/division that let the merch rights go for films. Let's not give them that much credit. But I'm looking at this in a few ways, mainly from the perspective that Sony does not plan to sell SPE at this time:
1) Post Amazing Spider-Man 2 the Spider-Man film brand is not as valuable as it once was (Not saying worthless, just not as valuable). They go to Marvel/Disney to make a deal. In order to take advantage of the MCU's popularity they agree to the collaberation providing that they still own the film rights, distribute, and get creative decisions (and get to use other Marvel characters they don't own). Disney/Marvel agreees in exchange for getting Spider-Man to be in some of their films, but they also want to take some precaution down the road to make sure the risk of losing Spider-Man in the MCU is minimized. They tell Sony they'll help reignite interest in Spider-Man (and maybe also allow use of other charaters in Sony projects, see Kingpin in Into The Spider-Verse), but Sony can be the only partner in this. Sony can't just make this deal so they can get enough value and allow the film rights to go elsewhere. Sony, desperate to get their top film franchsie back on track agrees to eliminate the transfer clause.
2) Assuming that the transfer clause was not eliminated during the original five film deal: Far From Home just became the first Spider-Man film to make a billion dollars. Into The Spider-Verse, which used a character that had to be licenced by Disney/Marvel (even if he's not a major reason why the film succeeded), is a critical success. Spider-Man was just featured in the highest grossing film of all time. And Marvel is allowing Sony's video game division, the big money maker, to probably make another sequel exclusive to their platforms. That's two dependencies on Disney/Marvel for success with the live action films, and two acts of good will to help out the projects Sony handles on their own. Renegotiations come in. Does Sony really want to cut ties with Marvel? We still don't know how Venom 2 and Morbius will perform. Sony's most profitable division could easily work a little bit longer with Marvel to get a few more million seller games providing both sides are happy. Why tank that relationship right now? Because that's a guaranteed way off hurting good will on the solo live-action spider-man films by rebooting. Any good will to get additional approved licenses for either the spider-verse films or the video games could disappear.
Disney/Marvel wants to make sure in the long run they aren't dealing with either Comcast or Warners (probably Comcast). They tell Sony eliminate the clause if you want to continue to work together. We're not helping you raise the value of the brand only for you to use it to sell the studio. (since as you said, Spider-Man's film rights are a big part of SPE).
Is that really worth it in Sony's eyes to tank a partnership that helps out mutliple divisions of their company? And potentially put the value of that license at risk by tanking it?
If Sony is lying about not selling SPE, sure. Point taken. But I still stand by point 1 in that case that Disney had to have taken some precautions and made the arguement about how much they contributed to raising the brand value a few years back. And we know how desperate SPE can be.
Sony Picture is much healthier right now than PS3 days. Why would Sony sell it since they have Jumanji, Venom and MCU Spider all making bank?
Sony could always use Kingpin without Marvel's permission. And Marvel can use Kingpin without Sony's permission (in Daredevil). Peter Porker, though, Marvel/Disney had to approve.
I do agree with your overall point that Disney would definitely want to change section 23 of the amended contract in 2015, however, given what's publicly known I am not sure Disney/Marvel really got much out of that deal.
Sony does not have the scale or content to compete in the movie and streaming business. If they didn't have MCU's partnership this year they would be down in the single digits with the peons of Fox and Paramount. Plus assets are like stocks in a sense, you wanna sell high and buy low. Not saying Sony is gonna do it, but they need to acquire and grow or divest and focus on their other areas, such as as games.
Oh Kingpin was available to be used by both sides? I thought he was under Daredevil's rights.
I need to remember that then.
3.l(i) Fox Kingpin Characters. During the Fox License Term, SPE's Rights to the Fox Kingpin Characterare subject to Fox's rights therein under the terms of the Daredevil Agreement, and SPE agrees not to include any of the Fox Kingpin Characters in any Production produced by SPE or otherwise use such Fox Kingpin Characterduring the Fox License Term without Fox's prior written consent (and notice of Fox's consent to Marvel). After the expiration of the Fox License Term, (A) SPE will have the right to exercise on a non-exclusive basis all Rights provided for in this Section 3 with respect to the Kingpin Character, and (B) Marvel shall be entitled to exploit on a non-exclusive basis motion picture, television and related rights (including without limitation rights of the nature described in this Section 3) with respect to the Kingpin Character solely in connection with motion pictures, television programs and related audiovisual productions in which the main protagonist is a Marvel character that had a Previous Association with the Kingpin Character, (C) Marvel shall be permitted to exercise its Reserved Rights and the LP shall be permitted to exercise its rights hereunder and (D) Fox Kingpin Characters other than the character "Kingpin" shall be shared between SPE and Marvel as set forth on Schedule 7(B) and each party may use such Fox Kingpin Characters only in motion pictures, television programs or other comparable audiovisual works in which the Kingpin Character appears in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. A Marvel character shall be deemed to have had a "Previous Association" with the Kingpin Character if such Marvel character was the main protagonist of Authorized Works initially published or released prior to the Amendment Effective Date in which the Kingpin Character appears. By way of example only, Marvel would have the right to include the Kingpin Character in a Punisher or a Daredevil motion picture produced after the Fox License Term because Kingpin has appeared with these characters in Authorized Works initially published or released prior to the Amendment Effective Date, but Marvel could not include the Kingpin Character in a Thor motion picture because Kingpin has not appeared with Thor in an Authorized Work published prior to the Amendment Effective Date. For the avoidance of doubt, (x) Marvel shall not be prevented hereunder from exercising its Reserved Rights in and to the Fox Kingpin Characters or the Jessica Drew Characters to the same extent that Marvel and the LP is permitted to exercise its rights with respect to Spider-Man Subsidiary Characters, (y) SPE is not granted under this Agreement any rights to Daredevil Picture Related Elements ("Daredevil Picture Related Elements" having the same meaning as "Picture-Related Elements," except that it refers to motion pictures produced by Fox under the Daredevil Agreement, instead of referring to Pictures produced by SPE), and (z) neither SPE nor Marvel shall have the right during the Production Term to produce any live action or animated motion picture or television program or other linear audio-visual work in which the Kingpin Character is the main protagonist (it being understood that nothing contained herein shall limit Marvel's rights to exploit the Kingpin Character as a main protagonist in publishing or in non-linear applications such as video and/or computer games).
Oh Kingpin was available to be used by both sides? I thought he was under Daredevil's rights.
I need to remember that then.
2.f. Shared Characters.
2.f(i) Kingpin and Related Characters. Marvel represents that exclusive motion picture rights to the character "Kingpin" (the "Kingpin Character") and those related characters listed on Schedule 7B (the "Fox Kingpin Characters") have been licensed by Marvel to New Regency Productions ("Fox") under an agreement currently in effect ("Daredevil Agreement") relating primarily to the character "Daredevil" for a license term (the "Fox License Term"). The Fox Kingpin Characters are included in the Property, but, notwithstanding any contrary provision hereof, (A) during the Fox License Term, SPE's Rights to the Fox Kingpin Characters are subject to Fox's rights therein, and (B) after the expiration of the Fox License Term, the Fox Kingpin Characters shall be shared by SPE and Marvel as set forth in Section 3.l below. For the avoidance of doubt, any characters relating to "Kingpin" that are listed in Schedule 6 (and are not listed on Schedule 7B) have not been licensed by Marvel to Fox (and are not subject to Section 3.l below), and are included in the Property and included within the exclusive grant of Rights to SPE under Section 3 below. Marvel will not take any action that would cause any Spider-Man Subsidiary Character associated with the Kingpin Character that is not, as of the Amendment Effective Date, subject to Fox's rights to become subject to Fox's rights under the terms of the Daredevil Agreement or otherwise.
You forgot to tag OrangeAtlas when talking Pikachu
So what's the avatar bet on Detective Pikachu vs Angry Birds 2 being the highest rated video game movie?
I agree with the streaming aspect, which is why they're staying away from it and sold out of Crackle.Sony does not have the scale or content to compete in the movie and streaming business. If they didn't have MCU's partnership this year they would be down in the single digits with the peons of Fox and Paramount. Plus assets are like stocks in a sense, you wanna sell high and buy low. Not saying Sony is gonna do it, but they need to acquire and grow or divest and focus on their other areas, such as as games.
I agree with the streaming aspect, which is why they're staying away from it and sold out of Crackle.
But film production, remove FFH and they'd still be on pace to crack $1bn domestically and maintain double digits market share also if they didn't have the MCU they'd have a Spider-Man film which let's assume doesn't make more than TASM2 but still a good haul.
But I do agree, Sony needs to acquire or divest if they're serious about SPE. MGM, AMC they need scale. But Yoshida is way too conservative at this moment so Sony is likely to meander in mediocrity through his tenure. If they sell SPE, please explain a cohesive story about Sony. They'll be a hodgepodge of different businesses that make no sense together. And God forbid PS5 craters.
Yoshiba doesn't mind investing but only for the divisions that he deems strategically important. To be honest it's still fairly early to give more money to SPE because of the amount of waste that went on there a couple of years ago. If anything Sony's TV division should be getting more funds but with all the big players investing in their own streaming services and thus investing heavily in new TV shows that is a hard but to crack unless Sony partners up with Netflix or Amazon and makes exclusive shows for them.I agree with the streaming aspect, which is why they're staying away from it and sold out of Crackle.
But film production, remove FFH and they'd still be on pace to crack $1bn domestically and maintain double digits market share also if they didn't have the MCU they'd have a Spider-Man film which let's assume doesn't make more than TASM2 but still a good haul.
But I do agree, Sony needs to acquire or divest if they're serious about SPE. MGM, AMC they need scale. But Yoshida is way too conservative at this moment so Sony is likely to meander in mediocrity through his tenure. If they sell SPE, please explain a cohesive story about Sony. They'll be a hodgepodge of different businesses that make no sense together. And God forbid PS5 craters.
The fact that "Daredevil Agreement" is being used as an actual legal term in a real-life contract is just hilarious to me.
Considering they spent a ton of money somewhere in the 9 figures to secure the services of Phil lord and Chris Miller for the tv division, it looks like that division did get some money to invest.Yoshiba doesn't mind investing but only for the divisions that he deems strategically important. To be honest it's still fairly early to give more money to SPE because of the amount of waste that went on there a couple of years ago. If anything Sony's TV division should be getting more funds but with all the big players investing in their own streaming services and thus investing heavily in new TV shows that is a hard but to crack unless Sony partners up with Netflix or Amazon and makes exclusive shows for them.
Film wise they do need a new franchise that's true, but let's be honest it's been years since they started talking about using their Marvel characters and we only really saw Venom as a result. They need to prove themselves a bit more before more money gets wasted on SPE.
Yoshiba doesn't mind investing but only for the divisions that he deems strategically important. To be honest it's still fairly early to give more money to SPE because of the amount of waste that went on there a couple of years ago. If anything Sony's TV division should be getting more funds but with all the big players investing in their own streaming services and thus investing heavily in new TV shows that is a hard but to crack unless Sony partners up with Netflix or Amazon and makes exclusive shows for them.
Film wise they do need a new franchise that's true, but let's be honest it's been years since they started talking about using their Marvel characters and we only really saw Venom as a result. They need to prove themselves a bit more before more money gets wasted on SPE.
US Gross: $65,845,974
Opening Weekend: $32,828,348
2.00 Multiplier
International Gross: $186,597,000
Opening Weekend: $107 Million
Top 5 International Markets
China: $59 Million
France: $11 Million
Mexico: $10 Million
UK: $9 Million
Russia - CIS: $7 Million
Honestly, a pathetic end to the fox x-men universe.
Sucks because this movie could have been something great.
Honestly, a pathetic end to the fox x-men universe.
And the reason Sony is trash.Yoshiba doesn't mind investing but only for the divisions that he deems strategically important. To be honest it's still fairly early to give more money to SPE because of the amount of waste that went on there a couple of years ago. If anything Sony's TV division should be getting more funds but with all the big players investing in their own streaming services and thus investing heavily in new TV shows that is a hard but to crack unless Sony partners up with Netflix or Amazon and makes exclusive shows for them.
Film wise they do need a new franchise that's true, but let's be honest it's been years since they started talking about using their Marvel characters and we only really saw Venom as a result. They need to prove themselves a bit more before more money gets wasted on SPE.
From DeadlineUniversal's Good Boys is headed for a surprise opening of $20M. Industry estimates have it there after what is expected to be an $8M Friday.
If these projections maintain, Good Boys will rep the biggest comedy opening of the year with Universal boasting the the biggest comedy openings of the past three years following last September's Night School and 2017's Girls Trip. Good Boys is also poised to be the first R-rated comedy at No. 1 since Uni opened The Boss back in April 2016. Nobody does comedy nowadays better than Universal. The numbers speak for themselves.
Game night made just over $100M.It's kind of insane how much comedies have fallen off in just 10-15 years in the box office. Like in 2005 Wedding Crashers made over 200 million domestically (almost 300 million adjusted for inflation). And then of course you have the Hangover in 2009, 277 million actual, 334 adjusted. I don't remember the last comedy to reach 100 million that wasn't Crazy Rich Asians.
Sony has a lot of potential IP on gaming side that could translate to big films with the proper care. With gaming now being in charge of it i hope something good comes from it.
We have a multi billion dollar film franchise with 5 entries based off a plotless theme park ride. No source medium is incapable of generating massive hits.I'm not convinced gaming IPs will make huge blockbuster movies, but we'll see.
We have a multi billion dollar film franchise with 5 entries based off a plotless theme park ride. No source medium is incapable of generating massive hits.
I see Angry Birds 2 advertised every where.
Sure, but I would like to see one hit it big before believing it. A proof of concept if you will.
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just not convinced. I think the IPs that are more based on story telling and ambiance could maybe break out. The ones based on gameplay would be even more likely.
Like what? It's been awhile since I watched the movie.
What do you guys think about this article?
2019* is the only year where not a single movie has grossed between $200 M-400 M. Either it's below 200 (which is literally every movie) or above 400 (4 movies made by Disney).
*yet
If you look at the teams behind literally any video game movie you can see why none of them have broken out. And half of them are either uninspired trend chasers (Prince of Persia was an obvious attempt at another Pirates of the Caribbean) or are corporate led glorified tie-in products (like Assassin's Creed). We've yet to see an interesting creative team, well-fit for blockbusters, doing genuine adaptation work that's not being directly overseen by a publisher or something.Sure, but I would like to see one hit it big before believing it. A proof of concept if you will.
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just not convinced. I think the IPs that are more based on story telling and ambiance could maybe break out. The ones based on gameplay would be even more likely.
It's kind of insane how much comedies have fallen off in just 10-15 years in the box office. Like in 2005 Wedding Crashers made over 200 million domestically (almost 300 million adjusted for inflation). And then of course you have the Hangover in 2009, 277 million actual, 334 adjusted. I don't remember the last comedy to reach 100 million that wasn't Crazy Rich Asians.