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.

I think Marvel is banking on Sony not having any other choice. Fan backlash will turn against the latter, fair or not and Sony's prospects will become worse. They can't really go back to what they were doing before after this and expect great things.

And I don't think Marvel's offer is even unfair. 50/50 split is still a big win for Sony, so yeah, while I think Marvel is engaging in some cynicism and manipulation, I don't think their being unrealistic.

 Azreal13 wrote:
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.

I think they only sold the movie rights. The reason they've been sluggish with some comics of those properties were because they didn't want to create ads for (movie) IPs they don't control anymore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_in_film#Licensing_agreement_with_Marvel_Studios

The rights to further films featuring the character were purchased in 1985, and moved through various production companies and studios before being secured by Sony Pictures Entertainment (Columbia Pictures) for $10 million (plus 5% of any movies' gross revenue and half the revenue from consumer products),[1] who hired Sam Raimi to direct Spider-Man (2002), Spider-Man 2 (2004), and Spider-Man 3 (2007) starring Tobey Maguire. The first two films were met with positive reviews from critics, while the third film received a more mixed response.

I tried a few links but none had more useful information :/

Mario wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
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.

I think they only sold the movie rights.

That's what we're discussing?

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

If Marvel hadn't sold Spidey, there wouldn't be a Marvel.

They had to sell movie rights for the a listers.

X-men, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man.

That the MCU the became the cultural phenomenon it is? Nobody, literally nobody, could’ve predicted.

I'd love to know how broad Sony's rights extend, character-wise... Specifically, it would be hilarious if Disney just recast Tom Holland as Ben Reilly/Scarlet Spider and carried on with their own thing.

Coming to a newsstand near you soon, new from Marvel Comics, the people who brought you Iron Man, The Mighty Thor and The Incredible Hulk...

Arachno Boy!

 Azreal13 wrote:
Coming to a newsstand near you soon, new from Marvel Comics, the people who brought you Iron Man, The Mighty Thor and The Incredible Hulk...

Arachno Boy!

...

I actually would be interested in a comic character named Night Monkey tho.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

If Marvel hadn't sold Spidey, there wouldn't be a Marvel.

Which was a situation that Marvel created for themselves. And yet they seem very petty about it. Cancelling the FF comics because they didn't own the movie rights was childish.

 gorgon wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

If Marvel hadn't sold Spidey, there wouldn't be a Marvel.

Which was a situation that Marvel created for themselves. And yet they seem very petty about it. Cancelling the FF comics because they didn't own the movie rights was childish.

Don't forget everything involving the X-men as well. They wanted to ensure that anything owned by Sony they put out less of. Which is why we had replacement peter parkers for a while... And why they pushed Inhumans so much compared to X-men.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

If Marvel hadn't sold Spidey, there wouldn't be a Marvel.

Which was a situation that Marvel created for themselves. And yet they seem very petty about it. Cancelling the FF comics because they didn't own the movie rights was childish.

Don't forget everything involving the X-men as well. They wanted to ensure that anything owned by Sony they put out less of. Which is why we had replacement peter parkers for a while... And why they pushed Inhumans so much compared to X-men.

Not quite. All of the fox properties got slowly swept away, X-men and Fantastic Four. But from what I've heard, FF comics are pretty low sellers so getting rid of them for a couple of years and having their characters and villains show up in other comics was an attempt to get the public familiar and excited about them again so that the new line could be rebooted. And X-men is one of those comics that sell no matter what. So they were able to sideline the x-men with little to no effect on sales numbers.

Sony, on the other hand, has the rights to all spider-man comics universe characters. Even Miles and Spider-Gwen belonged to Sony as soon the characters were created. Spider-man is one of, if not the best selling Marvel comic. So Marvel didn't have the choice to sideline spider-man in the comics.

Hm, I hadn't realized that. I had thought they only gained the rights to the main universe Peter Parker stuff.

Well the more you know and all that.

I should specify sony only has the rights to use Spider-man characters in movies. rereading my original comment it sounds like I meant in general.

Sounds like Sony is pissed that Kevin is working on getting F4 and X-Men in. If that’s the case, they’d better do an about face, because the fans won’t support them. And the other thing I heard was that Marvel wanted to split the cost AND split the profit down the middle. Which SOUNDS totally reasonable (I know, to a studio that knows they’ll make bank, they want to fund it and reap the rewards completely). But Marvel is right; the biggest thing that made THIS Spidey the best is how he ties into the MCU. Taking that away is only going to piss off the fans. I know Stan Lee’s daughter isn’t happy with how Marvel handled his passing, and she sides with SONY because of that...but SONY is going to lose a LOT of good will from the the fans.

I have never boycotted a movie before... But if sony doesnt get back in line i will probably boycott their every spiderman related film from here on out.

I want them to know they need marvel proper to run this show.

I saw all the headlines today about how Stan's daughter coming out for Sony and claiming how Disney/Marvel treated him "worse than anyone."

Given I seemed to remember some issues around Stan being actually abused in his later years, I found that a little rich, did a bit of googling and discovered some information about what she is alleged (?) to have done to her parents and her conduct in general.

Yeah, glass houses and all that...

 Azreal13 wrote:
I saw all the headlines today about how Stan's daughter coming out for Sony and claiming how Disney/Marvel treated him "worse than anyone."

Given I seemed to remember some issues around Stan being actually abused in his later years, I found that a little rich, did a bit of googling and discovered some information about what she is alleged (?) to have done to her parents and her conduct in general.

Yeah, glass houses and all that...

Can't speak to that, but I just found it odd in general. Disney rather went out of their way to acknowledge and hoist a glass to him in pretty much every film, and that's not even mentioning how much money changed hands.
Disney did pretty well in honoring Stan Lee and his legacy. Not sure what Sony did in that regard- which they don't really have any obligation to, since film-making is about money for the companies involved, but it adds a bit of class to the proceedings.

It seems like someone just wanted to cash in on some free fame and try to scrabble some of her father's legacy for herself.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Sounds like Sony is pissed that Kevin is working on getting F4 and X-Men in. If that’s the case, they’d better do an about face, because the fans won’t support them. And the other thing I heard was that Marvel wanted to split the cost AND split the profit down the middle. Which SOUNDS totally reasonable (I know, to a studio that knows they’ll make bank, they want to fund it and reap the rewards completely). But Marvel is right; the biggest thing that made THIS Spidey the best is how he ties into the MCU. Taking that away is only going to piss off the fans. I know Stan Lee’s daughter isn’t happy with how Marvel handled his passing, and she sides with SONY because of that...but SONY is going to lose a LOT of good will from the the fans.

No one really cares or knows the difference other than the MCU zealots. Most moviegoers thought Deadpool was MCU. And one really has to be a raving MCU zealot to think that you can't make a good Spidey film OR make money without the MCU.

IMO, the MCU was somewhat awkwardly shoved down our throats by making Peter some kind of Iron Man sidekick. Iron Man. LOL. I'm not a giant Spidey fan, but he's 10 times the character that Iron Man is. RDJ was the real draw there, and he's done with the MCU. So why does Spidey's wagon need to be hitched to the MCU, especially given that it looks to be going cosmic in the next phase? Spidey in spaceships is dumb anyway. Spider-verse is the best SM film yet, and it has nothing to do with the MCU.

Oh, live action box office has been PDG for the non-MCU films.

SM - 821 mil
SM2 - 783 mil
SM3 - 890 mil
ASM - 757 mil
ASM2 - 709 mil

Compared to:
SM:HC 880 mil
SM:FFH 1.1 bil

Adjust the Maguire films for inflation, and they probably draw even with or top FFH's totals. So setting aside the fact that it's INSANE to think that Sony should share 50/50 with Marvel for an IP that Marvel doesn't own, why would Sony want an even split of 1 billion when history shows pretty conclusively that they can make $750-800 mil and keep it?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I saw all the headlines today about how Stan's daughter coming out for Sony and claiming how Disney/Marvel treated him "worse than anyone."

Given I seemed to remember some issues around Stan being actually abused in his later years, I found that a little rich, did a bit of googling and discovered some information about what she is alleged (?) to have done to her parents and her conduct in general.

Yeah, glass houses and all that...

Can't speak to that, but I just found it odd in general. Disney rather went out of their way to acknowledge and hoist a glass to him in pretty much every film, and that's not even mentioning how much money changed hands.
Disney did pretty well in honoring Stan Lee and his legacy. Not sure what Sony did in that regard.

It seems like someone just wanted to cash in on some free fame and try to scrabble some of her father's legacy for herself.

Disney is pretty legendary in Hollywood for screwing over its talent, and it's easy and cheap to 'hoist a glass' to someone even as you're taking them for all they're worth behind the scenes. But I don't know exactly how they would have screwed Lee over, given that he was more of a figurehead at this point than anything else.

Voss wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I saw all the headlines today about how Stan's daughter coming out for Sony and claiming how Disney/Marvel treated him "worse than anyone."

Given I seemed to remember some issues around Stan being actually abused in his later years, I found that a little rich, did a bit of googling and discovered some information about what she is alleged (?) to have done to her parents and her conduct in general.

Yeah, glass houses and all that...

Can't speak to that, but I just found it odd in general. Disney rather went out of their way to acknowledge and hoist a glass to him in pretty much every film, and that's not even mentioning how much money changed hands.
Disney did pretty well in honoring Stan Lee and his legacy. Not sure what Sony did in that regard- which they don't really have any obligation to, since film-making is about money for the companies involved, but it adds a bit of class to the proceedings.

It seems like someone just wanted to cash in on some free fame and try to scrabble some of her father's legacy for herself.

This is the article I read, I make no robust claims about the quality of journalism or the accuracy of the facts, but taken at face value she doesn't come off well.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/features/stan-lee-needs-a-hero-elder-abuse-claims-a-battle-aging-marvel-creator-1101229


Automatically Appended Next Post:

"It is not uncommon for J.C. to charge, in any given month, $20,000 to $40,000 on credit cards, sometimes more," the document states. It goes on to describe how, when he and his daughter disagree — "which is often" — she "typically yells and screams at me and cries hysterically if I do not capitulate."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

According to household staff and business associates, there have been times when J.C.'s verbal outbursts have turned physical. One incident took place in winter 2014, explains Lee's former business and asset manager Bradley J. Herman, after J.C. discovered that the new Jaguar convertible parked outside, which she thought had been purchased for her, was in fact only leased — and in her father's name. Herman, in Stan's office to handle some paperwork, recalls that the argument spiraled out of control after J.C. called her parents "fething stupid" and Joanie told her the car was "now [Joanie's.]"
According to Herman — whose active Hollywood client list he keeps private but who previously worked for Johnny Carson and Frank Sinatra — J.C. then roughly grabbed her mother by one arm, shoving her against a window. Joanie fell to the carpeted floor. Lee, seated in a nearby chair and looking stunned, told J.C. he was cutting her off: "I'm going to stick you in a little apartment and take away all your credit cards!" Herman recalls Lee shouting. "I've had it, you ungrateful bitch!" In "a rage," J.C. took hold of Lee's neck, slamming his head against the chair's wooden backing. Joanie suffered a large bruise on her arm and burst blood vessels on her legs; Lee had a contusion on the rear of his skull. (J.C. has previously denied the incident.)

There's lots of iffiness going on about that. - There's a video from Stan himself refuting many of the claims (then again is the video coerced?)

After she/her friends let most of his care staff go after they had been with him for a LONG time, before he was even gone...I’d definitely be looking into coercion.

Just edited my last post as I realised I'd accidentally missed the most important bit off the second post while cutting and pasting.

 gorgon wrote:
Which was a situation that Marvel created for themselves. And yet they seem very petty about it. Cancelling the FF comics because they didn't own the movie rights was childish.

That was Marvel, not Marvel Studios.

Some fairly tenuous rumours today (all emanating from a largely unknown Youtuber by the looks) suggesting that a new deal has been struck.

Wouldn't give that any credit in isolation, but set in the context of a cryptic Instagram post with RDJ and Tom Holland holding a Spiderman and Iron Man action figure respectively with the caption "Looks like we did it Mr Stark!" adds a little more weight.

I think there was always going to be a deal. Marvel is in a stronger bargaining position than Sony from the get go, and once news breaks that Tom Holland and Spidy are leaving the MCU it only gets better. Sony doesn't have much choice but to make a deal.

Jeff Goldblum weighs in on Twitter.

To be honest, a lot more people could do with taking his approach to the subject, in my view.

 Compel wrote:
Jeff Goldblum weighs in on Twitter.

To be honest, a lot more people could do with taking his approach to the subject, in my view.

What approach is that exactly, having a minor stroke and mumbling nonsense?

 Compel wrote:
Jeff Goldblum weighs in on Twitter.

To be honest, a lot more people could do with taking his approach to the subject, in my view.

Funny, I thought incoherent, confused gibber was what we were already getting.

Voss wrote:

Funny, I thought incoherent, confused gibber was what we were already getting.

Fair point, well made.

Well Marvel said nothing about it at the D23 presentation that happened a few minutes ago.

They just announced BP2 for 2022, added some cast to Eternals (including Kit Harrington as The Black Knight), showed off some Widow footage and then that was it!