Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

According to Deadline Sony and Disney have had a tiff about the funding and profit sharing terms of future Spiderman movies, which pretty much sums up as Marvel proposing a 50/50 split on both funding and profits, and Sony telling them to feth off and be happy with their 5% of gross. While two more Tom Holland Spidey films ostensibly remain in development, they won't have Feige on board as a producer, and the chances Spiderman will be showing up in any future MCU cameos is slim.

The day when AI-driven tools allow individuals to make whole entertainment products on their own rendering copyright impossible to enforce can't come soon enough - I'd rather wade through an ocean of trashy fanfic looking for the few gems than repeatedly watch cool characters and settings get screwed around because of commercial imperatives and "rights issues".

It's worth pointing out that Disney got all merchandising too. - So it was hardly an unfair deal for the mouse.

Don't get me wrong, I think Sony might have gotten a bit cocky thanks to Venom's 'cult' status, and Spiderverses success but also... I can't help but think that Disney had an ulterior motive at play here to try to drain Sony's funds.

I don't know what they are playing at( silly buggers by the sounds of it ), but can they please just give us his Amazing Friends already?

Seriously, Firestar is banging hot and Iceman is totally cool. And their apartment is Tracy Island quality. If they could throw in Julian McMahon as Doctor Doom, that would be awesome too...although I don't remember watching an episode that actually featured him.

Videoman...yeah, he should be in there too!

This is really sad news, I thought Far From Home was excellent. Really hope they can find a middle ground.

Called it and now calling this, Disney will retain the right to make Spiderman movies, a deal will be made just wait and see, there is far too much money involved and Sony knows it wont be able to cash in on the spiderman brand as much as the MCU as amply demonstrated by the newer movies, Sony is holding out for a better deal I reckon and they will get a better deal.

Apparently Sony's stock dropped with the announcement that Spidey might be leaving the MCU.

Good. Maybe it'll send 'em back to the negotiating table.

Disney's not faultless here. I get that they want a larger slice of the pie, but they can't be so stupid as to not realise what a big drawcard Spidey is.

Boo I say! Sony needs to just sell spidey back to Disney for a ludicrous sum of money and be done with it. Yes, its a cash cow. But it's only REALLY a cash cow with Marvels backing. Sony is literally incapable of keeping good product coming without them.

I also feel like a deal will be cut eventually.

But isn’t Disney’s usual answer ‘well, we’ll just buy your studio then’?

Didn't they just already buy a large studio? Might be a bit strapped for cash until that's paid off.

I haven’t read up on it, only this thread: if, as the original post says, Marvel offered a 50/50 split of funding and profits and SONY turned them down, then the people at SONY who made that decision are a bunch of asstards. Marvel helped save Spidey for them, gave them a ton of extra background to work with, and they’re gonna throw it away? Is Spidey not going to be trying to live up to Tony’s memory anymore? No fallout from The Snap any further down the line? Yeah...no. SONY hasn’t thought this through, and they’re idiots. If Disney wants to continue consulting and offer half funding, half profit isn’t unreasonable. But SONY is being unreasonable.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Didn't they just already buy a large studio? Might be a bit strapped for cash until that's paid off.

Fox, a big studio indeed.

One could argue, with great merit, that the Company should now be looked at hard under the Sherman Act.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I haven’t read up on it, only this thread: if, as the original post says, Marvel offered a 50/50 split of funding and profits and SONY turned them down, then the people at SONY who made that decision are a bunch of asstards. Marvel helped save Spidey for them, gave them a ton of extra background to work with, and they’re gonna throw it away? Is Spidey not going to be trying to live up to Tony’s memory anymore? No fallout from The Snap any further down the line? Yeah...no. SONY hasn’t thought this through, and they’re idiots. If Disney wants to continue consulting and offer half funding, half profit isn’t unreasonable. But SONY is being unreasonable.

But Venom and Spiderverse were so successful! They don’t need Marvel anymore!

 Frazzled wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Didn't they just already buy a large studio? Might be a bit strapped for cash until that's paid off.

Fox, a big studio indeed.

One could argue, with great merit, that the Company should now be looked at hard under the Sherman Act.

...lol?
I'd rather if you want to talk about Sherman Act Violations that Sinclair Broadcast Group is the number one target.

Anyways, sounds like Sony's up to the same nonsense that was happening pre-Holland Spider Man.

 Frazzled wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Didn't they just already buy a large studio? Might be a bit strapped for cash until that's paid off.

Fox, a big studio indeed.

One could argue, with great merit, that the Company should now be looked at hard under the Sherman Act.

With a half dozen major competitors and innumerable smaller ones, there isn't any point. No one would take that kind of claim seriously, even without Disneys pull in DC.

 Frazzled wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Didn't they just already buy a large studio? Might be a bit strapped for cash until that's paid off.

Fox, a big studio indeed.

One could argue, with great merit, that the Company should now be looked at hard under the Sherman Act.

This! But good luck that ever being enforced again. I really do not expect it in my lifetime.

When contacted for comment some people at Sony said the actual dispute was over a producer credit for Feige and that negotiations were still ongoing. Generally it sounds like they're trying to spin it in a wya that makes them look better.

I don't really blame Sony for walking away - if they walked away, their need for Spider-man movies to do insanely well comes from the fact that the rest of the studio seems to be actively trying to sink itself - the spider-money is a major part of what keeps them in business. If Disney cuts in on that in any significant way Sony pictures needs to shrink.

On the other hand I don't feel any sympathy for the situation Sony finds itself in - its like watching a boxing match where one fighter has been subsisting on junk food since the weigh-in, we may not (and should not) like either of them, but one is clearly putting in the work and the other, frankly, hasn't.

Still. Hoping this can get sorted, I'm not sitting through another Spider-man origin story.

Uncle Ben doesn’t deserve a forth death.

Voss wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Didn't they just already buy a large studio? Might be a bit strapped for cash until that's paid off.

Fox, a big studio indeed.

One could argue, with great merit, that the Company should now be looked at hard under the Sherman Act.

With a half dozen major competitors and innumerable smaller ones, there isn't any point. No one would take that kind of claim seriously, even without Disneys pull in DC.

Disney's percentage of US sales vs. all other US tickets sold combined is impressive. I am not saying its appropriate, just that a good argument could be made that it should be reviewed by the DOJ at this point.

but to the topic, this feels like an ongoing negotiation ploy. I imagine they will come to terms. If they don't...meh.

 AduroT wrote:
Uncle Ben doesn’t deserve a forth death.

They need to destroy all his horcruxes. One is in Gwen Stacey.

the paraphrase the gambling industry

'the mouse always wins'

Sony getting lucky with Spiderverse and Venom doesn't erase the failure of their prior spidey efforts

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
the paraphrase the gambling industry

'the mouse always wins'

Sony getting lucky with Spiderverse and Venom doesn't erase the failure of their prior spidey efforts

7 spider films and 4 good ones, thats pretty good in all fairness, would not call it lucky.

Not seen Spiderverse, so can't comment, but from the others (I assume you mean Maguire, Garfield and Hardy.)

Venom isn't a Spiderman movie, you could literally drop any other alien possession type creature into it and have the same story. Venom is only Venom in the wider context of the Marvel Universe. It's 7 out of 10 at best, and I really can't explain its success outside of some sort of anomaly.

I'm not sure the Maguire trilogy has aged all that well, and 3 was DOA anyway, and were the Garfield ones ever good?!

I really don’t expect this status quo to last.

Disney can do too much with Spider-Man, especially given the events of ‘Far From Home’. He was a key player in Tony Stark’s latter arc, and a popular addition.

Sony know they need the MCU’s additional clout to put extra bums in seats. Especially when you look at the other properties they’ve got to play with (based on a cursory google). Sure, they could put out another £700,000,000 box office film, ala Venom. But then they’re stumping up the full load. Signing up with Disney again shares the risk, and can push it to £1,000,000,000. Depending on the setup costs, that leads to better profits regardless.

They’ll come to some kind of arrangement in the next few weeks. I see this as predominantly strong-arming from Sony’s side of things, seeing just how much Disney want Spidey in their world.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Not seen Spiderverse, so can't comment, but from the others (I assume you mean Maguire, Garfield and Hardy.)

Venom isn't a Spiderman movie, you could literally drop any other alien possession type creature into it and have the same story. Venom is only Venom in the wider context of the Marvel Universe. It's 7 out of 10 at best, and I really can't explain its success outside of some sort of anomaly.

I'm not sure the Maguire trilogy has aged all that well, and 3 was DOA anyway, and were the Garfield ones ever good?!

Spiderverse is very good, and I suspect the praise Sony got for it both justified(on the basis of it being a good film) and less so(the "Peter Parker is so played out and palestalemale, Sony are SOOOO brave for doing Miles Morales!" crowd) is as much a factor as Venom in them deciding they don't need Marvel any more.

And you're right enough about the Raimi/Maguire trilogy and the Garfield movies. Honestly I don't get the undying love some people seem to have for the Maguire films, I think it's maybe an American thing boung up in the whole New York "spirit"/9-11 deal? I mean, they were top tier superhero films in their day, but that's largely because the competition was mostly pretty trash.

Oh and an interesting aside - apparently the Deadline journo who "broke" the story was featured pretty heavily in the Sony email leaks from a while back as their general "this is the guy we use to put out our narrative" guy, and it's extremely likely that the "sources" in the article are Sony themselves(which makes the way the article fluffs the pillows of that movie exec guy make a lot more sense).

 Azreal13 wrote:
Not seen Spiderverse

If nothing else, you should rectify that. It's one of the best comic book movies I have ever seen.

Eh, I dunno. If Marvel doesn't like it, they shouldn't have sold off Spidey. Why wouldn't Sony call the shots? And it isn't like they've done a terrible job with the SM IP, other than SM3 and ASM2. The rest were all solid to very good, with Spidey-verse better than all of them, Marvel included.

I know a lot of people really dug Far from Home, but I thought it was the most 'MCU' thing ever to make Tony Stark so prominent in the film and Peter's motivations...even after his death! If no MCU means that they have to focus on and dig more into Spidey's lore, great. Because there's plenty to explore there that doesn't involve freakin' Iron Man.

IIRC Marvel had to sell the rights to Spidey, along with FF, X Men etc as if they didn't there wouldn't have been a Spidey. This was back prior to Disney and they basically had an IP fire sale to keep the lights on.

As to FFH, it would have been more odd if, given their relationship, the events of EG and the fact that the whole thing is supposed to be connected, that it wasn't a massive part of Peter's life in the aftermath?

 gorgon wrote:
Eh, I dunno. If Marvel doesn't like it, they shouldn't have sold off Spidey.

Yes. How dare Disney execs not like a deal that happened a decade before Disney had any say:
1999- Marvel sells film rights out of desperation.
2009- Disney buys Marvel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Not seen Spiderverse

If nothing else, you should rectify that. It's one of the best comic book movies I have ever seen.

Meh. Dealing with the tedium of one origin story is bad enough. Spiderverse took it to extremes, I honestly got bored halfway through because I got tired of ticking off cliches on the 'obvious plot elements' cheatsheet.


The art styles didn't help either.