-
Men in Black (which is Marvel owned through their 90s takeover of Malibu) is also at Sony - I wonder if that would also revert to Disney if Sony sold up?
-
[QUOTE=Digifiend;4623054]Men in Black (which is Marvel owned through their 90s takeover of Malibu) is also at Sony - I wonder if that would also revert to Disney if Sony sold up?[/QUOTE]
I'm wondering that as well. It should...in theory. Depends on the clauses in the contracts. The Spidey deal had specific limits placed on it in that Columbia/Tri-Star had to A. Make a movie by a specific timeframe in order to maintain the rights, B. If they weren't making a film, they had to at least had one in "active development" and C. If the studios merged or got bought out the rights would immediately revert as previous contracts would no longer be valid (which was a wise move given how tempting it may have been to concede the whole lot when Marvel was in bankruptcy.)
Men In Black (at least movie wise) is different. The original comic was published by Aircel in 1990. Aircel would get bought out by Malibu in 91. Malibu would eventually be snapped up by Marvel. Marvel only bought it to stop DC purchasing it (who were interested) and to get their hands on the new digital coloring Malibu was using. The actual movie deal was made in 1992 and was well into development by the time Marvel came calling. So its a very grey area. It depends on the specific clauses in that original contract.
I could see Disney parting with that amount of money if they opted to grab a number of Sony franchises alongside Spider-man and Men In Black. Jumanji is a viable franchise at the moment and I could see that fitting in well in the House Of Mouse.
But if you were going to do that, you'd just buy the company outright. They've had opportunities in the past to do it. Yet never pulled the trigger. But I do feel Disney wants those Spider-man rights back with them ASAP. Especially in the wake of the recent dispute between Marvel and Sony. I'd imagine that is something Disney wants to avoid happening again.
-
[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/03/garden/men-in-black-come-from-his-galaxy.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm"]Apparently[/URL], the original author retained the rights and fully sold them to Sony. Marvel just receives a small percentage of merchandise revenue as part of the deal the author and Sony triangulated with Malibu (the deal was signed right before Marvel bought them), but officially they do not own the franchise outside of those first 6 issues.
-
They just can't ignore the box office potential of a Howard the Duck, Spider Ham and Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse crossover. :p
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4620384]If Sony is going to be bought out by Apple, the rights go automatically to Marvel/Disney and for free. [/quote]
This is a persistent rumour that is provably untrue. The leaked contracts clearly allow for any prospective buyer to have the rights transferred to them. If Apple or anyone else bought Sony Studios they would obviously be in the market for buying the rights to Spider-Man too. Indeed why would they bother otherwise? The IP that Sony lay claim to is where their value lies.
There is a nice summary [URL="https://www.resetera.com/threads/marvel-sony-spiderman-contracts.13589/"]HERE[/URL]
As can be seen, this point remains unchanged:
“Sony can sell and transfer the rights contained in the license agreement to individuals or other corporations, including other Major Studios”
Quite where this rumour started is confusing but given the many untruths about the Spider-Man contract that get regurgitated every few weeks it is no surprise. Clearly nobody in the entertainment media bothers to fact check anything these days.
Sometimes I wonder if some reporters in the entertainment media look to fan forums to try and understand what is going on in superhero contracts and thereby pick up many untruths and unfounded rumours and take them as informed facts.
This goes right along side “Disney bought merchandising rights to Spider-Man outright” as a media fuelled misunderstanding of the actual contracts.
At least the merchandising deal can be confusing given that this part of the contract keeps being changed and requires other parts of the contract for context. Also the way Disney like to talk about the merchandising rights is to say they were ‘purchased’, and ignore that this is an ongoing arrangement that is subject to review. That clouds the issue.
The transfer rights on the other hand are very clear.
-
[QUOTE=JKtheMac;4623430]This is a persistent rumour that is provably untrue.[/quote]
Every single website I read including Wall Street Journal says the rights return to Marvel in case of merger. So if this is a mistake it's not one that I made.
In any case, those leaked documents stem from the period before the Sony-Disney deal that led to Captain America Civil War and Homecoming. So maybe this was a new clause added then. Or that this is a clause that isn't strong enough to get past lawyers.
-
[QUOTE=JKtheMac;4623430]This is a persistent rumour that is provably untrue. The leaked contracts clearly allow for any prospective buyer to have the rights transferred to them. If Apple or anyone else bought Sony Studios they would obviously be in the market for buying the rights to Spider-Man too. Indeed why would they bother otherwise? The IP that Sony lay claim to is where their value lies.
There is a nice summary [URL="https://www.resetera.com/threads/marvel-sony-spiderman-contracts.13589/"]HERE[/URL]
As can be seen, this point remains unchanged:
“Sony can sell and transfer the rights contained in the license agreement to individuals or other corporations, including other Major Studios”
Quite where this rumour started is confusing but given the many untruths about the Spider-Man contract that get regurgitated every few weeks it is no surprise. Clearly nobody in the entertainment media bothers to fact check anything these days.
Sometimes I wonder if some reporters in the entertainment media look to fan forums to try and understand what is going on in superhero contracts and thereby pick up many untruths and unfounded rumours and take them as informed facts.
This goes right along side “Disney bought merchandising rights to Spider-Man outright” as a media fuelled misunderstanding of the actual contracts.
At least the merchandising deal can be confusing given that this part of the contract keeps being changed and requires other parts of the contract for context. Also the way Disney like to talk about the merchandising rights is to say they were ‘purchased’, and ignore that this is an ongoing arrangement that is subject to review. That clouds the issue.
The transfer rights on the other hand are very clear.[/QUOTE]
My, aren't you fun at parties. In any case, that's an interesting summary about who owns what. It even breaks down the animated rights, which I was curious about.
-
I think another problem with the rumor is that [B]Disney[/B] and [B]Sony[/B] are unlikely to agree on the value of the character, given [B]Disney[/B] already has the rights to everything [I]Spider-Man[/I] other than the film rights (and they purchased film and merchandising rights to [B]LucasFilm[/B] and [B]Marvel[/B] for $4 billion, the lower end of the projected offer for [I]Spider-Man[/I]). [B]Disney[/B] is likely to slow down on [I]Spider-Man[/I] films, given that they have other properties they might want to explore at different times and know it doesn’t cost them anything (unlike [B]Sony[/B] who needs to make them not just to make money but to keep the rights). [B]Disney[/B] also is not going to be developing other characters in Spidey’s universe, other than, maybe, as [B]Disney+[/B] properties. [B]Disney[/B] may know that having [I]Spider-Man[/I] films on their service is valuable, but is it worth $2-3 billion? Probably not. I imagine the value [B]Disney[/B] would place on the rest of [I]Spider-Man[/I] they don’t already have is $2 billion. Why $2 billion? Because I could see [B]Disney[/B] realistically valuing just the film rights at roughly $2 billion. After all, [I]Spider-Man: Far From Home[/I] made $384 million in pure profit, just from its theatrical release. Now streaming isn’t too much of an issue, but they have to see the value in it or [B]Disney[/B] wouldn’t have opened their own streaming platform. But that movie would probably make [B]Disney[/B] and additional $10-20 million to whomever go streaming or television rights to air it. So, that is roughly $400 million for each [I]Spider-Man[/I] movie, assuming they perform at this level moving forward. Over ten years, with a movie every other year (for arguments sake, they would probably take [B]Sony[/B]’s output of [I][B]Spider-Man[/B][/I] films as reference), they would get $2 billion in pure profit. That’s solvency in a decade and that is good for a company. But, again, you can’t value the other stuff, like live action television on [B]Disney+[/B] with his other characters, at $2 billion to $3 billion in and of themselves. Indeed, [B]Disney[/B] is probably going to see those guys as assets in the couple hundred million dollar range. Their absolute limit would, likewise, probably be right around $2.5 billion—and that’s liberally estimating how much each [I]Spider-Man[/I] film will make (which I’d argue is actually fair, but that is a digression) and how many they will actually make (and I sincerely doubt they will make a new [I]Spider-Man[/I] film every other year, given they have plenty of other properties I’m sure they’re eager to introduce for the first time as well).
But the IP is worth FAR more to [B]Sony[/B]. Because not only do the [I]Spider-Man[/I] movies turn profits like $400 million. They can also license those films out to streaming services that do value them at $10-20 million a pop. They can make a hundred million more in profit on just that film. Then they can also make [I]Venom[/I] movies, that make the studio almost $300 million a pop. They can do animated films that make them more than $50 million. Over ten years, these films can make them $3.75 billion before we get to streaming and television viewing rights. And before we get to the shows that they want to do that can make some more money. Valuing [I]Spider-Man[/I], as an IP for [B]Sony[/B], at least right now, at $4 billion is probably conservative.
So, unless [B]Sony[/B] gets in real trouble and want to make some quick dough, they would be fools to value the IP at half what its actual value is to them. And [B]Disney[/B] would be foolish to pay that much for a property they wouldn’t even break even on by 2030. Right now, it doesn’t make sense for this sale to go through. But, y’know, crazier things have happened.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4623545]Every single website I read including Wall Street Journal says the rights return to Marvel in case of merger. So if this is a mistake it's not one that I made.
In any case, those leaked documents stem from the period before the Sony-Disney deal that led to Captain America Civil War and Homecoming. So maybe this was a new clause added then. Or that this is a clause that isn't strong enough to get past lawyers.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely, this gets repeated everywhere. I wasn’t blaming you personally for repeating it. It isn’t “true” though. It would only prove true if Sony sold up their studios and didn’t bother about the IP which would be very stupid of them.
Just as the leaked contracts make it clear that it was never “true”* that if Sony didn’t make a movie for a certain number of years the rights reverted. The truth has always been more complex and while many media claims had substance they often lacked the nuance of contractual reality.
*it is kind of true that they need to make a certain number of movies in set times but also kind of false because they could also use other methods to extend the contract.
From what we know of the 2015 revisions, they still used the existing contract and effectively all they did was simplify how money changed hands in order for the production buy-in to balance out the merchandising rights payment. This made it such that Disney were not actually paying for the merchandising rights but instead swapping production input for them. This is why it was so obvious that the recent press reporting over the MCU involvement were ill-informed. They didn’t ever quite get that by not continuing or modifying the 2015 contract they would default back to the earlier contract and Disney would be in a worse position. Their merchandising department would have been up in arms for starters.
Given the undisputed value of the rights to both parties it is unlikely in the extreme that Sony allowed a clause to remove the transfer of rights, precisely because that would hugely change the value of the property if Sony ever decided they wanted to get out of the movie business.
In general a lot of the rumours rely on thinking of Sony as being in a weaker negotiating position. They are certainly not.
As to the value of these rights, they could very well number in the low billions. Comparing them unfavourably to Star Wars misses a few key points. The brand is very strong and relatable internationally just as Star Wars is, it is entirely possible Star Wars was undervalued, and Spider-Man alone by itself is high on the list of brand value with a comparable value to The Avengers and indeed Star Wars.
If you can imagine a property as a Lego line, specifically themed around it as a property with a similar size to the range that say Star Wars or Harry Potter has, then it probably has a similar value. Spider-Man has the potential for this.
-
[QUOTE=JKtheMac;4625112]Absolutely, this gets repeated everywhere. I wasn’t blaming you personally for repeating it. It isn’t “true” though. It would only prove true if Sony sold up their studios and didn’t bother about the IP which would be very stupid of them.
Just as the leaked contracts make it clear that it was never “true”* that if Sony didn’t make a movie for a certain number of years the rights reverted. The truth has always been more complex and while many media claims had substance they often lacked the nuance of contractual reality.
*it is kind of true that they need to make a certain number of movies in set times but also kind of false because they could also use other methods to extend the contract.
From what we know of the 2015 revisions, they still used the existing contract and effectively all they did was simplify how money changed hands in order for the production buy-in to balance out the merchandising rights payment. This made it such that Disney were not actually paying for the merchandising rights but instead swapping production input for them. This is why it was so obvious that the recent press reporting over the MCU involvement were ill-informed. They didn’t ever quite get that by not continuing or modifying the 2015 contract they would default back to the earlier contract and Disney would be in a worse position. Their merchandising department would have been up in arms for starters.
Given the undisputed value of the rights to both parties it is unlikely in the extreme that Sony allowed a clause to remove the transfer of rights, precisely because that would hugely change the value of the property if Sony ever decided they wanted to get out of the movie business.
In general a lot of the rumours rely on thinking of Sony as being in a weaker negotiating position. They are certainly not.
As to the value of these rights, they could very well number in the low billions. Comparing them unfavourably to Star Wars misses a few key points. The brand is very strong and relatable internationally just as Star Wars is, it is entirely possible Star Wars was undervalued, and Spider-Man alone by itself is high on the list of brand value with a comparable value to The Avengers and indeed Star Wars.
If you can imagine a property as a Lego line, specifically themed around it as a property with a similar size to the range that say Star Wars or Harry Potter has, then it probably has a similar value. Spider-Man has the potential for this.[/QUOTE]
thanks for the well thought out assessment
-
If Disney is to spend "that" kind of money-- I'd suggest buying the theme park rights back from Universal instead.
-
[QUOTE=Hypestyle;4638974]If Disney is to spend "that" kind of money-- I'd suggest buying the theme park rights back from Universal instead.[/QUOTE]
This [I]or[/I] making some vertical integrations that allow for [B]Disney[/B] to outright own a company that makes toys and/or merchandise. Then, they’d see 100% of that dollar also. Although, I’m not sure how interested they are in this idea. After all, they moved away from in-house development of video games to focus more on “the stuff they are good at”.
-
So, wait a moment. I'm gonna assume that Sony/Marvel deal is bunk, but why would Sony sell its Movie arm to Apple, one of it's electronics competitors? Isn't that a bad idea?
-
[QUOTE=Darkspellmaster;4641925]So, wait a moment. I'm gonna assume that Sony/Marvel deal is bunk, but why would Sony sell its Movie arm to Apple, one of it's electronics competitors? Isn't that a bad idea?[/QUOTE]
I have no idea if Sony would sell Columbia Pictures to Apple, but one reason could be they do not think they can compete with Disney, Warner Bros and Universal. This is the reason Fox gave for selling to Disney. As far as Disney is concerned, I cannot see them buying Spider-Man and the other characters for $4.5b, but what if Screen Gems ( Resident Evil, I Dream Of Jeannie and Bewitched) and other possible "Tentpole" properties were included like Men In Black and Ghostbusters? That package might be worth $4.5b.
-
[QUOTE=NC_Yankee;4641995]I have no idea if Sony would sell Columbia Pictures to Apple, but one reason could be they do not think they can compete with Disney, Warner Bros and Universal. This is the reason Fox gave for selling to Disney. As far as Disney is concerned, I cannot see them buying Spider-Man and the other characters for $4.5b, but what if Screen Gems ( Resident Evil, I Dream Of Jeannie and Bewitched) and other possible "Tentpole" properties were included like Men In Black and Ghostbusters? That package might be worth $4.5b.[/QUOTE]
Oh god...Disney's Men in Black and Disney's Ghostbusters?! Would anything be sacred?
