I guess the current franchise with Tom Holland will continue, but will have no involvement from Marvel Studios and Spider Man is no longer apart of the MCU stories.
All I see is Disney gets to use SONY's product and Disney wants 50%. All I see is Disney taking and taking. What are they giving? This sucks but where is the benefit to SONY? Is it just DIsney saying we will make you a lot of money if you do this?
Wouldn't it be the other way around at the beginning of your post? SONY gets to use Disney's product since Disney owns Marvel? I'm not positive of what the initial agreement was when SONY first bought the rights to Spider-Man, but they haven't had the best track record when making them without having Marvel involved.
there's going to be an immense amount of backlash Â
The fact that Spider-Verse happened to be incredible and venom overperformed shouldn't let Sony forget they tanked the property with the mediocre Webb/Garfield movies.
Wouldn't it be the other way around at the beginning of your post? SONY gets to use Disney's product since Disney owns Marvel? I'm not positive of what the initial agreement was when SONY first bought the rights to Spider-Man, but they haven't had the best track record when making them without having Marvel involved.
Did a paper on Marvel and their business for grad school. They sold the rights to their biggest properties when facing bankruptcy in the late 90s (X-Men, Spider-man).
That's what Marvel Studios taking someone who was a 2nd/3rd rate superhero and having such success with Iron Man was such a big victory.
Moronic decision and the MCU fan boys will probably boycott a new non MCU SpiderMan. I wouldnt be surprised if Holland and Watt leave somehow also. Disney made them lots of money and they just got greedy.
Wouldn't it be the other way around at the beginning of your post? SONY gets to use Disney's product since Disney owns Marvel? I'm not positive of what the initial agreement was when SONY first bought the rights to Spider-Man, but they haven't had the best track record when making them without having Marvel involved.
SONY owns Spiderman not Disney.
RE: there's going to be an immense amount of backlash Â
The fact that Spider-Verse happened to be incredible and venom overperformed shouldn't let Sony forget they tanked the property with the mediocre Webb/Garfield movies.
The Venom movie probably did well because it had Hardy and Venom is such a great character. However, the movie sucked balls.
Wouldn't it be the other way around at the beginning of your post? SONY gets to use Disney's product since Disney owns Marvel? I'm not positive of what the initial agreement was when SONY first bought the rights to Spider-Man, but they haven't had the best track record when making them without having Marvel involved.
SONY owns Spiderman not Disney.
Sony owns the movie right to Spiderman not the character.
Wouldn't it be the other way around at the beginning of your post? SONY gets to use Disney's product since Disney owns Marvel? I'm not positive of what the initial agreement was when SONY first bought the rights to Spider-Man, but they haven't had the best track record when making them without having Marvel involved.
SONY owns Spiderman not Disney.
Sony owns the movie right to Spiderman not the character.
Same shit. We are talking about movies right now. So, SONY owns the movie rights to Spiderman and Disney wants that and 50%? What does SONY get in return. Still the same question I had before.
Wouldn't it be the other way around at the beginning of your post? SONY gets to use Disney's product since Disney owns Marvel? I'm not positive of what the initial agreement was when SONY first bought the rights to Spider-Man, but they haven't had the best track record when making them without having Marvel involved.
SONY owns Spiderman not Disney.
While Sony owns the rights, Spider-Man solo movies aren't the draw. Sony needs the MCU a lot moe than Marvel needs the Spider-man film property.
Sony saw the $$$$$ which is why they hit the agreement in the first place.
I'm not sure what the box office split is, and theres obviously a ton of other factors at play, but Far From Home has made 1.110 billion with some more eeking in from a LDW re-release. ASM and ASM 2 made around 738 million but the second was panned to such a degree that it pretty much killed that incarnation of the franchise.
Plus Sony has gotten some tertiary benefits from the renewed popularity of Spider-Man, who seems to be the most popular hero at this point in time. Spider-Verse made money and will have a sequel (not to mention is a great movie). And while it isn't Sony Pictures, isn't related to the MCU, and is also the product of just a fantastic game studio, the Spider-Man PS4 game sold insane amounts and was a critical darling.
Of course, Marvel got a ton from just having Spider-man in the MCU as well through a variety of avenues, but it didn't seem like either company was holding the other over the barrel.
From my admittedly limited vantage point, it seems Sony has some hubris that they don't need the MCU. I think that's incorrect.
Wouldn't it be the other way around at the beginning of your post? SONY gets to use Disney's product since Disney owns Marvel? I'm not positive of what the initial agreement was when SONY first bought the rights to Spider-Man, but they haven't had the best track record when making them without having Marvel involved.
SONY owns Spiderman not Disney.
Sony owns the movie right to Spiderman not the character.
Same shit. We are talking about movies right now. So, SONY owns the movie rights to Spiderman and Disney wants that and 50%? What does SONY get in return. Still the same question I had before.
Disney made Sony tons more money with the recent films. Sony is going to fall back to Andrew Garfield or less money now. I also wouldnt be shocked if Holland and Watts leave somehow and then Sony is back to stage 1.
SONY owns nothing related to Spidey other than the license to make Â
Spidey films. IF SONY were to go belly up or be sold off to another studio, let's say UNIVERSAL, then the rights to Spidey films automatically go back to MARVEL STUDIOS/DISNEY. Marvel has the TV and merchandising rights. This is terrible for Marvel Studios. Spider-Man was positioned to be their flagship character, which he historically has been and still should be. Not anymore.
RE: I may be ignorant here but what does Sony get out of striking a deal? Â
All I see is Disney gets to use SONY's product and Disney wants 50%. All I see is Disney taking and taking. What are they giving? This sucks but where is the benefit to SONY? Is it just DIsney saying we will make you a lot of money if you do this?
Pretty sure it was 50% co-financing, not a 50/50 box office split. Plus the MCU Spider-man movies made way more than the Sony only ones if Marvel was taking the figures cited in the article.
but I am just curious what SONY gets in return. It seems like Disney is strongarming SONY here. SONY is definitely thinking they are better than they are but at the same time that doesn't mean they should just bend over to Disney.
All I see is Disney gets to use SONY's product and Disney wants 50%. All I see is Disney taking and taking. What are they giving? This sucks but where is the benefit to SONY? Is it just DIsney saying we will make you a lot of money if you do this?
Pretty sure it was 50% co-financing, not a 50/50 box office split. Plus the MCU Spider-man movies made way more than the Sony only ones if Marvel was taking the figures cited in the article.
They literally killed the golden goose that is Spider-Man. They did it in the infamous Spider-MAn 3 with Raimi and the two crappy Amazing Spider-Man flicks. They needed Marvel Studios to rescue them. All Sony needed to do was step the fuck out of the way, but of course they couldn't. Those shit heads wanted to do an Aunt May movie. lol. Come the fuck on.
He says at the end that Feige, Disney/Marvel and Sony didn't comment. So who's his source then? I'm not saying he doesn't have one, but these things get planted because someone wants them planted. That's especially true when the writer is Mike Fleming, who has made his career by being very cozy with his sources.
The source is somebody who wants to put pressure on Sony. Could be someone at Disney, or Marvel, or at an agency. Since the article sucks up to Kevin Feige and throws shade at Sony, the source almost certainly was not at Sony. Unless there's someone inside Sony who disagrees with the decision of studio higher-ups and wants to embarrass them. That's unlikely.
Reading between the lines, this is part of the negotiation. Talks have stalled and somebody thought public pressure would help bring Sony back to the table and soften their position. It might work.
That's not being greedy. Marvel Studios didn't see a dime of that money. They resuscitated the character and integrated him into the greater MCU.
While I agree that they did an amazing job revitalizing Spiderman because it was just so overdone recently, that is in the past. This is business and if SONY still holds the rights to solo Spiderman films then they really hold the cards right now. That is something that Disney obviously wants. Spiderman is too big to make a tv show and put on their streaming service. This is SONY's ace card right here.
They literally killed the golden goose that is Spider-Man. They did it in the infamous Spider-MAn 3 with Raimi and the two crappy Amazing Spider-Man flicks. They needed Marvel Studios to rescue them. All Sony needed to do was step the fuck out of the way, but of course they couldn't. Those shit heads wanted to do an Aunt May movie. lol. Come the fuck on.
HAHAHA. Really? A movie about Aunt May? Well, if it is Marissa Tomei then I might watch. Haha.
RE: SONY owns nothing related to Spidey other than the license to make Â
Spidey films. IF SONY were to go belly up or be sold off to another studio, let's say UNIVERSAL, then the rights to Spidey films automatically go back to MARVEL STUDIOS/DISNEY. Marvel has the TV and merchandising rights. This is terrible for Marvel Studios. Spider-Man was positioned to be their flagship character, which he historically has been and still should be. Not anymore.
I have way more faith in the MCU to put out quality movies than Sony. They made GotG a franchise, they can live
The SONY hack spurred Spidey's entry into the MCU Â
He says at the end that Feige, Disney/Marvel and Sony didn't comment. So who's his source then? I'm not saying he doesn't have one, but these things get planted because someone wants them planted. That's especially true when the writer is Mike Fleming, who has made his career by being very cozy with his sources.
The source is somebody who wants to put pressure on Sony. Could be someone at Disney, or Marvel, or at an agency. Since the article sucks up to Kevin Feige and throws shade at Sony, the source almost certainly was not at Sony. Unless there's someone inside Sony who disagrees with the decision of studio higher-ups and wants to embarrass them. That's unlikely.
Reading between the lines, this is part of the negotiation. Talks have stalled and somebody thought public pressure would help bring Sony back to the table and soften their position. It might work.
Thank you Ben. I see you're a journalist so I trust what you're saying. Your post is required reading for this thread. I betchya that the source is someone from Marvel.
Possible but it would be, um, ethically questionable to use someone at Marvel your main source and then say Marvel didn't comment. Mike Fleming dances up to the line on things like that but even for him that would be queasy. If he says that Sony, Marvel, Disney and Feige didn't comment, he's probably telling the truth. So who else would know enough to leak this? Agents for Marvel, Feige. Another producer on the movie, and those producers' reps, would also know. Also agents for Tom Holland, Jon Favreau, Zendaya. But mostly agents and lawyers.
Possible but it would be, um, ethically questionable to use someone at Marvel your main source and then say Marvel didn't comment. Mike Fleming dances up to the line on things like that but even for him that would be queasy. If he says that Sony, Marvel, Disney and Feige didn't comment, he's probably telling the truth. So who else would know enough to leak this? Agents for Marvel, Feige. Another producer on the movie, and those producers' reps, would also know. Also agents for Tom Holland, Jon Favreau, Zendaya. But mostly agents and lawyers.
Thanks! That's invaluable info 81_Great_Dane. Thanks for the 411 on this. I find this stuff fascinating.
The shameless product placements in the last Spiderman movie were a SONY thing. They did the same thing in the Amazing Spider Man series ( the one with Gwen Stacey ). I was surprised to see a product placement for Synchrony bank. Those scumbags are a little better than a payday lender. Disney on their own wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.
The MCU is in transition right now as some of the more popular characters are no more and their replacements are still to be decided. Spider-man is an incredibly popular draw and a very established character. It would appear Parker is being setup as the next incarnation of Tony Stark. I don't see how Disney can simply boot Spider-man from the MCU.
Sony on the other hand...I don't know what they plan on doing other than solo Spider-man films. But if anyone is paying attention, every solo Spider-man film has been incredibly profitable. So, it might not be a bad thing if Sony goes it alone.
The MCU is in transition right now as some of the more popular characters are no more and their replacements are still to be decided. Spider-man is an incredibly popular draw and a very established character. It would appear Parker is being setup as the next incarnation of Tony Stark. I don't see how Disney can simply boot Spider-man from the MCU.
Well, now you're thinking like Sony: "Marvel needs Spider-man, we don't have to give an inch." I don't think that's gonna work. I think Disney and Sony will meet in the middle somewhere. This news will help push everyone back to the table.
RE: RE: RE: Tips on parsing that Deadline article. Â
Possible but it would be, um, ethically questionable to use someone at Marvel your main source and then say Marvel didn't comment. Mike Fleming dances up to the line on things like that but even for him that would be queasy. If he says that Sony, Marvel, Disney and Feige didn't comment, he's probably telling the truth. So who else would know enough to leak this? Agents for Marvel, Feige. Another producer on the movie, and those producers' reps, would also know. Also agents for Tom Holland, Jon Favreau, Zendaya. But mostly agents and lawyers.
Just like all the leaks we get when players and teams are fighting. The agents love negotiate inthe press. IMO
id lean towards this being a negotiation tactic as well.... Â
but it sux if it really happens. SONY would be stupid to do this as Disney 1000% does not need spiderman. They will just write him out for the next 10 years until Disney buys SONY or some shit. The only characters the MCU has lost is Cap and Iron Man. I get that is the two biggest, but they still have a ton of characters that are popular with fans now like Black Panther, Thor, Hulk, Captain Marvel, etc.. And they havent even introduced the characters they just got back from Fox. The MCU wont skip a beat without Spiderman but SONY will smash him into the next venom movie and it will be a disaster.
I thought they didn't have to pay a dime to produce the Tom Holland films but got to collect a fat check. A check that will always be fatter when he's involved in the MCU, Avengers, etc. Disney wants a bigger split after taking all the risk?
Venom was terrible but enough people saw it that Sony probably thinks they're capable of making good movies again.
Anywho I think this is all really just round 1 pf negotiations.
Wouldn't it be the other way around at the beginning of your post? SONY gets to use Disney's product since Disney owns Marvel? I'm not positive of what the initial agreement was when SONY first bought the rights to Spider-Man, but they haven't had the best track record when making them without having Marvel involved.
It's odd how the Raimi movies are viewed in a negative light these days. While the third one was terrible the first two were very well received at the time.
From things I read yesterday, Sony had very little to do with producing the movies with Marvel footing almost all of the production and development costs. Sony was still the distributor of the movie.
However, Marvel only got 5% of the opening weekend profits and nothing after that while Sony got everything else. My understanding is that Marvel was asking for a 50/50 split, which seems pretty reasonable being that they were the ones doing about 99% of the work to make the character a viable, profitable IP again. Spider-man: Far From Home is Sony's second most profitable movie of all-time after Skyfall and they owe it almost completely to Marvel.
So what does Sony have to gain? Incredible amounts of money for not much actual work.
From things I read yesterday, Sony had very little to do with producing the movies with Marvel footing almost all of the production and development costs. Sony was still the distributor of the movie.
However, Marvel only got 5% of the opening weekend profits and nothing after that while Sony got everything else. My understanding is that Marvel was asking for a 50/50 split, which seems pretty reasonable being that they were the ones doing about 99% of the work to make the character a viable, profitable IP again. Spider-man: Far From Home is Sony's second most profitable movie of all-time after Skyfall and they owe it almost completely to Marvel.
So what does Sony have to gain? Incredible amounts of money for not much actual work.
From things I read yesterday, Sony had very little to do with producing the movies with Marvel footing almost all of the production and development costs. Sony was still the distributor of the movie.
However, Marvel only got 5% of the opening weekend profits and nothing after that while Sony got everything else. My understanding is that Marvel was asking for a 50/50 split, which seems pretty reasonable being that they were the ones doing about 99% of the work to make the character a viable, profitable IP again. Spider-man: Far From Home is Sony's second most profitable movie of all-time after Skyfall and they owe it almost completely to Marvel.
So what does Sony have to gain? Incredible amounts of money for not much actual work.
This is what's going to happen. Sony is going to make Venom 2 expecting it to make a ton of money because the first one did. What they fail to realize is that people went to see the movie because of Tom Hardy and Venom's popularity among fans. I haven't seen it but I've heard it wasn't good which means the sequel will probably disappoint at the box office.
The next Spiderman will also do poorly at the box office which will then cause Sony to either re-evaluate their position and offer Marvel what they want or they will decide to just sell the rights to Marvel.
This is what's going to happen. Sony is going to make Venom 2 expecting it to make a ton of money because the first one did. What they fail to realize is that people went to see the movie because of Tom Hardy and Venom's popularity among fans. I haven't seen it but I've heard it wasn't good which means the sequel will probably disappoint at the box office.
The next Spiderman will also do poorly at the box office which will then cause Sony to either re-evaluate their position and offer Marvel what they want or they will decide to just sell the rights to Marvel.
Everything about this post is completely wrong.
Have you seen the box office numbers of the past 7 Spider-man films?!
This is what's going to happen. Sony is going to make Venom 2 expecting it to make a ton of money because the first one did. What they fail to realize is that people went to see the movie because of Tom Hardy and Venom's popularity among fans. I haven't seen it but I've heard it wasn't good which means the sequel will probably disappoint at the box office.
The next Spiderman will also do poorly at the box office which will then cause Sony to either re-evaluate their position and offer Marvel what they want or they will decide to just sell the rights to Marvel.
Everything about this post is completely wrong.
Have you seen the box office numbers of the past 7 Spider-man films?!
Every Spider-man movie has made less money than the movie that preceded it until Marvel got involved.
Actually, I'm wrong. Spider-man 3 made more than Spider-man 2, probably because Spider-man 2 was eventually recognized as being better than the 1st one.
very good spider man movie, spider man 2, one good one spider man 1, a couple ok ones in ASM and Venom (i thought it was ok) and two awful ones, ASM 2 and Spider man 3. Thats not a great track record. Especially since Marvel made two that are in the very good range.
I think Disney knew that Sony was going to get crushed for this and they leaked it. Sure maybe it pisses Sony off and they tell disney to kick rocks, but they also might not want the public back lash they are getting. The MCU movies will be fine with or without spider man, but Sony is going to piss off comic book movie fans everywhere and then want them to come see their movies.
That's what Marvel Studios taking someone who was a 2nd/3rd rate superhero and having such success with Iron Man was such a big victory.
SONY owns Spiderman not Disney.
The Venom movie probably did well because it had Hardy and Venom is such a great character. However, the movie sucked balls.
Quote:
Wouldn't it be the other way around at the beginning of your post? SONY gets to use Disney's product since Disney owns Marvel? I'm not positive of what the initial agreement was when SONY first bought the rights to Spider-Man, but they haven't had the best track record when making them without having Marvel involved.
SONY owns Spiderman not Disney.
Sony owns the movie right to Spiderman not the character.
Quote:
In comment 14537414 bigblue5611_2 said:
Quote:
Wouldn't it be the other way around at the beginning of your post? SONY gets to use Disney's product since Disney owns Marvel? I'm not positive of what the initial agreement was when SONY first bought the rights to Spider-Man, but they haven't had the best track record when making them without having Marvel involved.
SONY owns Spiderman not Disney.
Sony owns the movie right to Spiderman not the character.
Same shit. We are talking about movies right now. So, SONY owns the movie rights to Spiderman and Disney wants that and 50%? What does SONY get in return. Still the same question I had before.
Quote:
Wouldn't it be the other way around at the beginning of your post? SONY gets to use Disney's product since Disney owns Marvel? I'm not positive of what the initial agreement was when SONY first bought the rights to Spider-Man, but they haven't had the best track record when making them without having Marvel involved.
SONY owns Spiderman not Disney.
Sony saw the $$$$$ which is why they hit the agreement in the first place.
I'm not sure what the box office split is, and theres obviously a ton of other factors at play, but Far From Home has made 1.110 billion with some more eeking in from a LDW re-release. ASM and ASM 2 made around 738 million but the second was panned to such a degree that it pretty much killed that incarnation of the franchise.
Plus Sony has gotten some tertiary benefits from the renewed popularity of Spider-Man, who seems to be the most popular hero at this point in time. Spider-Verse made money and will have a sequel (not to mention is a great movie). And while it isn't Sony Pictures, isn't related to the MCU, and is also the product of just a fantastic game studio, the Spider-Man PS4 game sold insane amounts and was a critical darling.
Of course, Marvel got a ton from just having Spider-man in the MCU as well through a variety of avenues, but it didn't seem like either company was holding the other over the barrel.
From my admittedly limited vantage point, it seems Sony has some hubris that they don't need the MCU. I think that's incorrect.
Quote:
In comment 14537422 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
In comment 14537414 bigblue5611_2 said:
Quote:
Wouldn't it be the other way around at the beginning of your post? SONY gets to use Disney's product since Disney owns Marvel? I'm not positive of what the initial agreement was when SONY first bought the rights to Spider-Man, but they haven't had the best track record when making them without having Marvel involved.
SONY owns Spiderman not Disney.
Sony owns the movie right to Spiderman not the character.
Same shit. We are talking about movies right now. So, SONY owns the movie rights to Spiderman and Disney wants that and 50%? What does SONY get in return. Still the same question I had before.
Disney made Sony tons more money with the recent films. Sony is going to fall back to Andrew Garfield or less money now. I also wouldnt be shocked if Holland and Watts leave somehow and then Sony is back to stage 1.
Quote:
All I see is Disney gets to use SONY's product and Disney wants 50%. All I see is Disney taking and taking. What are they giving? This sucks but where is the benefit to SONY? Is it just DIsney saying we will make you a lot of money if you do this?
Pretty sure it was 50% co-financing, not a 50/50 box office split. Plus the MCU Spider-man movies made way more than the Sony only ones if Marvel was taking the figures cited in the article.
Gotcha. That makes more sense.
IT'S OVER! Sony Takes Back Spider-Man From Kevin Feige & The MCU!! - ( New Window )
The source is somebody who wants to put pressure on Sony. Could be someone at Disney, or Marvel, or at an agency. Since the article sucks up to Kevin Feige and throws shade at Sony, the source almost certainly was not at Sony. Unless there's someone inside Sony who disagrees with the decision of studio higher-ups and wants to embarrass them. That's unlikely.
Reading between the lines, this is part of the negotiation. Talks have stalled and somebody thought public pressure would help bring Sony back to the table and soften their position. It might work.
Let Sony get their act together and make something good enough where they can dictate terms to Disney.
While I agree that they did an amazing job revitalizing Spiderman because it was just so overdone recently, that is in the past. This is business and if SONY still holds the rights to solo Spiderman films then they really hold the cards right now. That is something that Disney obviously wants. Spiderman is too big to make a tv show and put on their streaming service. This is SONY's ace card right here.
HAHAHA. Really? A movie about Aunt May? Well, if it is Marissa Tomei then I might watch. Haha.
The source is somebody who wants to put pressure on Sony. Could be someone at Disney, or Marvel, or at an agency. Since the article sucks up to Kevin Feige and throws shade at Sony, the source almost certainly was not at Sony. Unless there's someone inside Sony who disagrees with the decision of studio higher-ups and wants to embarrass them. That's unlikely.
Reading between the lines, this is part of the negotiation. Talks have stalled and somebody thought public pressure would help bring Sony back to the table and soften their position. It might work.
Thank you Ben. I see you're a journalist so I trust what you're saying. Your post is required reading for this thread. I betchya that the source is someone from Marvel.
Quote:
I betchya that the source is someone from Marvel.
Possible but it would be, um, ethically questionable to use someone at Marvel your main source and then say Marvel didn't comment. Mike Fleming dances up to the line on things like that but even for him that would be queasy. If he says that Sony, Marvel, Disney and Feige didn't comment, he's probably telling the truth. So who else would know enough to leak this? Agents for Marvel, Feige. Another producer on the movie, and those producers' reps, would also know. Also agents for Tom Holland, Jon Favreau, Zendaya. But mostly agents and lawyers.
Thanks! That's invaluable info 81_Great_Dane. Thanks for the 411 on this. I find this stuff fascinating.
Quote:
Statement and they are reopening negotiations. It’s not a lost cause yet
Whoever planted that story knew EXACTLY what they were doing. That's how you negotiate through the media.
Educational stuff there 81_Great_Dane. Thanks :-) I feel much better now.
Sony on the other hand...I don't know what they plan on doing other than solo Spider-man films. But if anyone is paying attention, every solo Spider-man film has been incredibly profitable. So, it might not be a bad thing if Sony goes it alone.
Quote:
I betchya that the source is someone from Marvel.
Possible but it would be, um, ethically questionable to use someone at Marvel your main source and then say Marvel didn't comment. Mike Fleming dances up to the line on things like that but even for him that would be queasy. If he says that Sony, Marvel, Disney and Feige didn't comment, he's probably telling the truth. So who else would know enough to leak this? Agents for Marvel, Feige. Another producer on the movie, and those producers' reps, would also know. Also agents for Tom Holland, Jon Favreau, Zendaya. But mostly agents and lawyers.
Just like all the leaks we get when players and teams are fighting. The agents love negotiate inthe press. IMO
Venom was terrible but enough people saw it that Sony probably thinks they're capable of making good movies again.
Anywho I think this is all really just round 1 pf negotiations.
It's odd how the Raimi movies are viewed in a negative light these days. While the third one was terrible the first two were very well received at the time.
However, Marvel only got 5% of the opening weekend profits and nothing after that while Sony got everything else. My understanding is that Marvel was asking for a 50/50 split, which seems pretty reasonable being that they were the ones doing about 99% of the work to make the character a viable, profitable IP again. Spider-man: Far From Home is Sony's second most profitable movie of all-time after Skyfall and they owe it almost completely to Marvel.
So what does Sony have to gain? Incredible amounts of money for not much actual work.
However, Marvel only got 5% of the opening weekend profits and nothing after that while Sony got everything else. My understanding is that Marvel was asking for a 50/50 split, which seems pretty reasonable being that they were the ones doing about 99% of the work to make the character a viable, profitable IP again. Spider-man: Far From Home is Sony's second most profitable movie of all-time after Skyfall and they owe it almost completely to Marvel.
So what does Sony have to gain? Incredible amounts of money for not much actual work.
exaccttlllyyy
However, Marvel only got 5% of the opening weekend profits and nothing after that while Sony got everything else. My understanding is that Marvel was asking for a 50/50 split, which seems pretty reasonable being that they were the ones doing about 99% of the work to make the character a viable, profitable IP again. Spider-man: Far From Home is Sony's second most profitable movie of all-time after Skyfall and they owe it almost completely to Marvel.
So what does Sony have to gain? Incredible amounts of money for not much actual work.
This is what's going to happen. Sony is going to make Venom 2 expecting it to make a ton of money because the first one did. What they fail to realize is that people went to see the movie because of Tom Hardy and Venom's popularity among fans. I haven't seen it but I've heard it wasn't good which means the sequel will probably disappoint at the box office.
The next Spiderman will also do poorly at the box office which will then cause Sony to either re-evaluate their position and offer Marvel what they want or they will decide to just sell the rights to Marvel.
The next Spiderman will also do poorly at the box office which will then cause Sony to either re-evaluate their position and offer Marvel what they want or they will decide to just sell the rights to Marvel.
Everything about this post is completely wrong.
Have you seen the box office numbers of the past 7 Spider-man films?!
Quote:
This is what's going to happen. Sony is going to make Venom 2 expecting it to make a ton of money because the first one did. What they fail to realize is that people went to see the movie because of Tom Hardy and Venom's popularity among fans. I haven't seen it but I've heard it wasn't good which means the sequel will probably disappoint at the box office.
The next Spiderman will also do poorly at the box office which will then cause Sony to either re-evaluate their position and offer Marvel what they want or they will decide to just sell the rights to Marvel.
Everything about this post is completely wrong.
Have you seen the box office numbers of the past 7 Spider-man films?!
Every Spider-man movie has made less money than the movie that preceded it until Marvel got involved.
I think Disney knew that Sony was going to get crushed for this and they leaked it. Sure maybe it pisses Sony off and they tell disney to kick rocks, but they also might not want the public back lash they are getting. The MCU movies will be fine with or without spider man, but Sony is going to piss off comic book movie fans everywhere and then want them to come see their movies.