Disney-Sony Standoff Ends Marvel Studios Involvement In ‘Spider-Man'

[Vakanai]

Tough Mudder are 5K - 10K runs through obstacle courses.

Trap Music is a musical genre of hip hop.

Basically imagine the executives at Sony like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AySXu8x-RnA

Ah...explains so much

[TheDarman]

The sources are within the article. It first sources Yahoo finance about Apple looking to buy a studio and Sony being a option, and later to a Forbes article explaining that if that happens the rights of Spider-Man are non-transferable, meaning they would revert to Disney if Sony sales.

I knew about the Apple thing and that they were looking at acquisitions. I just don’t recall in that Forbes article them stating that they were non-transferable and subject to different rules than other IP. I’ll give it another look.

EDIT: I took a look. If it does end up being an acquisition situation, it seems that we might still have a couple years before Spider-Man swings back to the MCU, because those things take a long time to get approval. That is, unless they make a deal in the meantime.

[TheDarman]

Sony Execs basically ignored ITSV and let the people there do their thing. If ITSV were live-action, it would have been a lot more scrutinized. Let's not pretend otherwise.

I don't know. This seems like an excuse to not give credit where credit is due. We want to unilaterally condemn the executives for their failures, but want to leave the successes to the creatives alone. Seems to be inconsistent to me, but I digress.

Rothman is not someone who one should have blind faith in when it comes to super hero movies. How anyone can after how fundamentally he screwed up Deadpool is something I honestly don't understand.

I don’t have blind faith. As I said, I prefer Feige at the helm. That being said, I disagree with the idea that we should be absolutely terrified. I think we should be more cautious, certainly, but not downright pessimistic.

You do know Disney could make more money without the deal making something they own 100%, right? They could make more money doing a Captain Ultra movie than essentially making a Spider-Man movie for Sony for relative peanuts.

I don’t know about that. Ant-Man and the Wasp didn’t make anywhere near the kind of money that a Spider-Man film making them 50% of the $1.1 billion in revenue would’ve. They aren’t being kind asking for that money. It is to offset the opportunity cost, certainly, and is even better for them than a low profile Marvel movie would’ve made them.

You're acting like Sony is a small little Mom & Pop studio instead of a massive corporation. Neither they nor Disney are small companies.

No, but I understand Spider-Man and his assorted characters are the most valuable IP Sony Pictures has. With the loss of James Bond and the proof that they can’t make big Men in Black movies without Will Smith, they are literally a company that makes original films that are hit and miss and a company that revolves around Spider-Man as their flagship brand. And Disney not only didn’t offer anything to sweeten the deal for Sony, but asked for them to give up part of the film rights (which is what a co-production would mean and effectively give Sony no avenue other than a hard reboot should the deal turn sour in the future) and half the revenue. That’s a move a company makes when it thinks it got screwed by the deal. Disney was lauding the deal not five years ago. So, are they lying now by saying it was a bad deal for them or were they lying then when they told everyone it was a great deal for them?

[Kevinroc]

I don't know. This seems like an excuse to not give credit where credit is due. We want to unilaterally condemn the executives for their failures, but want to leave the successes to the creatives alone. Seems to be inconsistent to me, but I digress.

That seems more like you. I don't have any faith in the guy who ordered Deadpool's mouth shut to produce a quality Spider-Man film.

I don’t have blind faith. As I said, I prefer Feige at the helm. That being said, I disagree with the idea that we should be absolutely terrified. I think we should be more cautious, certainly, but not downright pessimistic.

So if Morbious is as bad, or worse, than Venom? What will you say then?

I don’t know about that. Ant-Man and the Wasp didn’t make anywhere near the kind of money that a Spider-Man film making them 50% of the $1.1 billion in revenue would’ve. They aren’t being kind asking for that money. It is to offset the opportunity cost, certainly, and is even better for them than a low profile Marvel movie would’ve made them.

You can see why Disney might want more, now don't you?

No, but I understand Spider-Man and his assorted characters are the most valuable IP Sony Pictures has. With the loss of James Bond and the proof that they can’t make big Men in Black movies without Will Smith, they are literally a company that makes original films that are hit and miss and a company that revolves around Spider-Man as their flagship brand. And Disney not only didn’t offer anything to sweeten the deal for Sony, but asked for them to give up part of the film rights (which is what a co-production would mean and effectively give Sony no avenue other than a hard reboot should the deal turn sour in the future) and half the revenue. That’s a move a company makes when it thinks it got screwed by the deal. Disney was lauding the deal not five years ago. So, are they lying now by saying it was a bad deal for them or were they lying then when they told everyone it was a great deal for them?

Everything dies.

[TheDarman]

That seems more like you. I don't have any faith in the guy who ordered Deadpool's mouth shut to produce a quality Spider-Man film.

One bad decision doesn’t exactly make up a person’s whole career. It is, after all, a career that also includes X2: X-Men United, X-Men: First Class, and The Wolverine. Yeah, you had two duds in there for sure. But, again, I think that laying just the bad stuff at his feet is horribly inconsistent.

So if Morbious is as bad, or worse, than Venom? What will you say then?

Frankly? That a Morbius movie was a bad idea from the get-go and Jared Leto isn’t a good performer. I also, honestly, think Venom is far better than Thor: The Dark World or Iron Man 2. I’d have to see how Venom 2 is before I make any long-term judgment of quality under Rothman.

You can see why Disney might want more, now don't you?

Sure. But, again, Disney was the one asking for more. Not Sony. This was a deal that both sides said was a great deal for them not five years ago. I never said there wasn’t opportunity cost. But Disney knew that when they took the deal. That didn’t change in the last five years. And asking for double is probably appropriate, but a ten fold increase in revenue share and a portion of the film rights is probably asking for A LOT, yes?

Everything dies.

That doesn’t absolve the killer. And, in this case, it is very clearly Disney.

[Kevinroc]

One bad decision doesn’t exactly make up a person’s whole career. It is, after all, a career that also includes X2: X-Men United, X-Men: First Class, and The Wolverine. Yeah, you had two duds in there for sure. But, again, I think that laying just the bad stuff at his feet is horribly inconsistent.

If you read up on some BTS from those films, you'll see that Rothman was more of a hindrance to some of those films than a help. There's a reason X-Men: The Last Stand exists as it does, and that reason is Rothman.

Frankly? That a Morbius movie was a bad idea from the get-go and Jared Leto isn’t a good performer. I also, honestly, think Venom is far better than Thor: The Dark World or Iron Man 2. I’d have to see how Venom 2 is before I make any long-term judgment of quality under Rothman.

Venom put me to sleep. I'm not the biggest fan of Thor: The Dark World, but it didn't put me to sleep.

Sure. But, again, Disney was the one asking for more. Not Sony. This was a deal that both sides said was a great deal for them not five years ago. I never said there wasn’t opportunity cost. But Disney knew that when they took the deal. That didn’t change in the last five years. And asking for double is probably appropriate, but a ten fold increase in revenue share and a portion of the film rights is probably asking for A LOT, yes?

Disney was essentially making Spider-Man movies for Sony. They wanted more compensation. Should Disney not get compensation after Sony proved unable to handle the task of making Spider-Man movies?

That doesn’t absolve the killer. And, in this case, it is very clearly Disney.

Sony has nobody to blame on their handling as a movie studio but Sony. They can't even get movies based off of Playstation properties off the ground.

[TheDarman]

If you read up on some BTS from those films, you'll see that Rothman was more of a hindrance to some of those films than a help. There's a reason X-Men: The Last Stand exists as it does, and that reason is Rothman.

I would love some completely unbiased reporting of this BTS drama that demonstrated Rothman was nothing but a hindrance. In which case, why did Fox keep him on for twelve years and why does he keep getting jobs as a film executive? He can't have been all that bad at his job.

Venom put me to sleep. I'm not the biggest fan of Thor: The Dark World, but it didn't put me to sleep.

Okay. This is just one of those agree to disagree moments. A film struck me a different kind of way than it struck you. Frankly, Thor: The Dark World got the same CinemaScore that Venom did so they’re probably more comparable to the general audience than either of us are giving them credit for.

Disney was essentially making Spider-Man movies for Sony. They wanted more compensation. Should Disney not get compensation after Sony proved unable to handle the task of making Spider-Man movies?

They got to use Spider-Man, a character that they didn’t have the rights to, for free in their films. That is not worth nothing. Apparently Disney thought so, hence why they so undervalued Sony’s contribution to the deal that they tried to extort money and part of the film rights back from them. And let’s not forget Disney gets 100% of the merchandising profits with a mere $30 million going back to Sony for those rights, regardless of how well they do for Disney (upwards of $1.3 billion a YEAR) and can make TV shows featuring Spider-Man. Sony literally has nothing but the film rights and Disney still wasn’t satisfied with the deal. They got a character whose rights are worth $5 billion to appear in their films for free. And apparently that means nothing. Unlike Disney, who got 5% of the gross that went back to Sony, Sony got nothing for Spider-Man’s appearance in other films. It was already a deal that benefitted Disney quote a lot.

Sony has nobody to blame on their handling as a movie studio but Sony. They can't even get movies based off of Playstation properties off the ground.

Doesn’t have much to do with the point I was making but alright. They’ve struggled. And Disney comes gunning for the only thing that they can consistently count on to garner them a profit.

[Kevinroc]

I would love some completely unbiased reporting of this BTS drama that demonstrated Rothman was nothing but a hindrance. In which case, why did Fox keep him on for twelve years and why does he keep getting jobs as a film executive? He can't have been all that bad at his job.

All I need do is point to "he ordered Deadpool's mouth shut" in X-Men Origins: Wolverine to say that maybe we shouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to super hero movies.

They got to use Spider-Man, a character that they didn’t have the rights to, for free in their films. That is not worth nothing. Apparently Disney thought so, hence why they so undervalued Sony’s contribution to the deal that they tried to extort money and part of the film rights back from them. And let’s not forget Disney gets 100% of the merchandising profits with a mere $30 million going back to Sony for those rights, regardless of how well they do for Disney (upwards of $1.3 billion a YEAR) and can make TV shows featuring Spider-Man. Sony literally has nothing but the film rights and Disney still wasn’t satisfied with the deal. They got a character whose rights are worth $5 billion to appear in their films for free. And apparently that means nothing. Unlike Disney, who got 5% of the gross that went back to Sony, Sony got nothing for Spider-Man’s appearance in other films. It was already a deal that benefitted Disney quote a lot.

Sony chose to enter into a deal with Disney after they massively screwed up their own Spider-Man film franchises. Twice.

Is it a bad thing that Disney wanted to be compensated for doing Sony's job for them?

Doesn’t have much to do with the point I was making but alright. They’ve struggled. And Disney comes gunning for the only thing that they can consistently count on to garner them a profit.

Sony is responsible for their own problems. They are not a small independent studio being bullied by Disney. These are both extremely large corporations.

[TheDarman]

All I need do is point to "he ordered Deadpool's mouth shut" in X-Men Origins: Wolverine to say that maybe we shouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to super hero movies.

I think you’re misunderstanding my point. It isn’t “be expectant of greatness”. It’s “it could be awful or it could be okay or it could be good”. I think not filing away any expectations is the best course of action right now.

Sony chose to enter into a deal with Disney after they massively screwed up their own Spider-Man film franchises. Twice.

Is it a bad thing that Disney wanted to be compensated for doing Sony's job for them?

It strikes me more as a Darth Vader, “I am changing the deal; pray I don’t alter it further” move than a move to institute a fair agreement. Especially since Disney had stated prior to this that it was a good deal for them. And it was. They were the ones who decided it wasn’t worth having Spider-Man in their Avengers movies for free unless they got a bigger than five percent cut of movies that they also wanted co-financing rights to (which limits Sony’s own rights to their property).

Sony is responsible for their own problems. They are not a small independent studio being bullied by Disney. These are both extremely large corporations.

At the end of the day, there has to be a recognition of where your partner is coming from and try to meet them in the middle. My understanding is that Sony tried but it wasn’t enough for Disney, who wanted more than Sony was willing to give.

[Kevinroc]

I think you’re misunderstanding my point. It isn’t “be expectant of greatness”. It’s “it could be awful or it could be okay or it could be good”. I think not filing away any expectations is the best course of action right now.

Sony's track record with Spider-Man speaks for itself.

It strikes me more as a Darth Vader, “I am changing the deal; pray I don’t alter it further” move than a move to institute a fair agreement. Especially since Disney had stated prior to this that it was a good deal for them. And it was. They were the ones who decided it wasn’t worth having Spider-Man in their Avengers movies for free unless they got a bigger than five percent cut of movies that they also wanted co-financing rights to (which limits Sony’s own rights to their property).

But it's not Sony's property. It's Marvel's property. Sony only has the film rights.

At the end of the day, there has to be a recognition of where your partner is coming from and try to meet them in the middle. My understanding is that Sony tried but it wasn’t enough for Disney, who wanted more than Sony was willing to give.

The people who really suffer in this scenario are the fans.

[AlexCampy89]

People have a very biased attitude towards Sony.

Sony did good for the most part with Spider-Man.
Raimi's Spider-Man 3 is a movie with a lot of problems in it, but it is better than anything else the DCEU has ever did to this point (except Aquaman and Wonder Woman) and many MCU movies (Thor the Dark World, Iron man 2, Antman and the Wasp, Captain Marvel) and Fox movies (all the Fantastic 4d, X-men Last Stand, Wolverine Origins, etc).

Even Amazing Spider-Man 1 is somewhat decent, despite some odd choices. And the death of Gwen Stacy in ASM 2 was really excellent, imo.
ITSV managed to make Miles Morales relevant and important for the very first time since his creation.
I don't care what's the reported BTS dramas behind those movies, they were made by Sony.

[jetengine]

"Tom Rothman only sewed up Deadpools mouth, its not THAT big a deal"

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/uv2yO

Rothmans the man who thought Titanic and Avatar wouldnt sell. Titanic I can get on the basis that (at the time) it looked like a catastrophic failure with all the drama during its creation. Avatar though ? Insanity.

[Agent Z]

"Tom Rothman only sewed up Deadpools mouth, its not THAT big a deal"

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/uv2yO

Rothmans the man who thought Titanic and Avatar wouldnt sell. Titanic I can get on the basis that (at the time) it looked like a catastrophic failure with all the drama during its creation. Avatar though ? Insanity.

As someone who didn't care for Avatar, I myself still can't fathom how it made so much money.

[jetengine]

As someone who didn't care for Avatar, I myself still can't fathom how it made so much money.

Spectacle, but its kind of irrelevant because at that point Camerins made so many hits and so much money that saying "It wont sell" is hideously dumb.

[TheDarman]

Sony's track record with Spider-Man speaks for itself.

Okay, we can talk about that.

Spider-Man: A- CinemaScore, 90% Rotten Tomatoes
Spider-Man 2: A- CinemaScore, 93% Rotten Tomatoes
Spider-Man 3: B+ CinemaScore, 63% Rotten Tomatoes (still a red tomato)
The Amazing Spider-Man: A- CinemaScore, 72% Rotten Tomatoes
The Amazing Spider-Man 2: B+ CinemaScore, 52% Rotten Tomatoes
Venom: B+ CinemaScore, 29% Rotten Tomatoes
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse: A+ CinemaScore (the only Spider-Man film, MCU or not, to score that high), 97% Rotten Tomatoes

They have made only ONE movie that wasn’t liked by a majority of critics. They have made three movies that MATCH the lowest scoring Marvel Studios films, but have NEVER fallen beneath their lowest fan reception. I think we are exaggerating how bad Sony’s Spider-Man films have been received outside of our little bubble. That, and I genuinely enjoyed every Spider-Man movie made with the lone exception of Spider-Man 3. We can go ahead and state that I lack credibility, but obviously I’m not alone (see above) and all film is subjective rather than objective.

In short, no, their track record maybspeak for itself for you, but certainly not for me and definitely not for general audiences. Frankly, for me, I think you had a better argument with Rothman being responsible for X-Men: The Last Stand and Deadpool having his mouth sewn shut. Of course, that had its flaws, what with him being responsible for a lot of Fox’s successful features, including putting in motion fantastic original programming that made the studio a force to be reckoned with come awards season time.

But it's not Sony's property. It's Marvel's property. Sony only has the film rights.

Marvel gave up the film rights in the 1990s to studios like Fox and Sony to avoid declaring bankruptcy. The fact that they did that is the only reason Disney had anything to purchase in 2009. That being said, the old expression goes, “you reap what you sow”. And, as of right now, Sony has the exclusive right to the property in film. And Disney, and its fans, can act as entitled as they want to have Spider-Man with them, but Sony has the rights, and Disney need to stop acting like they can run roughshod over everyone in this industry or that they no longer need a deal they lauded as a great deal for them four years ago.

The people who really suffer in this scenario are the fans.

Oh, absolutely. But, here’s the thing, that’s what both sides were counting on by making this public. They want people upset and angry and driving the other side to accept a deal. In the Variety article it is even stated these are the kinds of tactics that Rothman has engaged in before. I fully expect, given how close the figures got over the week since it was announced there was a split and D23, that they are back to the negotiating table.

I would like to point out, though, that for all the people putting their faith in the trades to let us know when negotiations have started, I wouldn’t hold your breath. According to Deadline, these talks had been going on for months and the first we heard of it was when discussions had broken down. And, in 2014, after discussions had broken down over the prospective partnership between Sony and Marvel, it took us THREE MONTHS to hear anything different than it was over. And who’d we hear from that a deal has been reached in February of 2015? It was a press release from Sony and Marvel.

They only leaked it to the trades to get negotiations started up again on different terms with each side signaling they would’ve made compromises my guess is they weren’t making in the room at the time. But, now, we just have to be patient and wade through denial after denial, just like last time. After all, Sony categorically denied the 2015 deal until it happened. I expect the same happened here.