Spider-Man forced out of the MCU due to failed Sony Deal

[Flash Gordon]

Imagine blaming Disney for doing what all buisness are doing when its clearly the fault of politicians who accept bribes, then blaming Disney for society somehow not functioning when its said politicians allowing society to fail because their the 1% and we're all meaningless statistics to them.

These giant mega corporations are the reason society is falling apart. The politicians don't even really matter anymore and the ones that do are just bought. Disney is not some moral paradigm full of virtuous individuals, just because we have shite politicians.

Getting upset because Disney lost an IP is not worth any of our time.

[jetengine]

These giant mega corporations are the reason society is falling apart. The politicians don't even really matter anymore and the ones that do are just bought. Disney is not some moral paradigm full of virtuous individuals, just because we have shite politicians.

Getting upset because Disney lost an IP is not worth any of our time.

Neither is blaming corporations for doing what they do when you could blame your politicians for not doing their jobs. But its easier to yell at businesses you cant influence then actually vote right ?

[XPac]

I don’t. Sony has Holland and can just make more films following up that don’t reference the Avengers or are very loosely acknowledging. They also now have their Venom and villain films set up with an incredibly popular hero they didn’t have prior.

They are no worse off besides no MCU characters showing up. And honestly any deal that gave Disney more of a cut was a needless overreach. The deal made sense initially because both sides were collaborating and they weren’t draining the others profits.

Sony is pretty much in the same position. If nothing else they repaired Spider-Man and have a franchise there and can parlay that with the new Venom franchise

Yes, Spider-Man is repaired... but the reason he needed repairing in the first place was because they kept breaking him. Similar to Fox and the WB, Sony struggles to string together more than 2 straight movies which don't result in some sort of backlash which threatens the IP. The reason they gave Spider-Man to marvel in the first place was because they seem to be the only ones capable of doing this with any real level of consistency.

I won't say that it's absolutely certain Sony can't turn things around, but they sort of have something to prove IMO.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

While all of that is true....Sony deliberately went to Disney asking for them to help them not make a sucky Spiderman movie. Their CEO is on the record saying they knew Marvel would do it right, that's why they went to them.

There is absolutely a chance that, on their own, they screw this up. (Probably a pretty good chance) To date, Disney has been hitting nothing but homeruns with their Marvel movies. Sony cannot say the same. There's a reason they went to Daddy Disney begging for help.

That’s well and good but Sony owns the film rights so any ability the MCU has to use Spidey cake down to the will of Sony to collaborate. Disney does not own the rights and they got the character in their films for virtually nothing.

And I would push back heavily on a lot of that. The first 3 Spider-Man films made more adjusting for inflation (not even counting a more robust international market) than everything but 3 of the 4 Avengers films and Black Panther. Then Venom who is a villain a stupid amount of money. Even the one really terrible film Sony made (ASM II) till made 700 million.

The idea that Sony needed Disney is overstated. Their issue was they were going in a direction that got the worst financial return so far and they weren’t confident in it and working with Disney was just more sure thing while they figured things out.

The long and short of it is, Disney really had no business asking for more. It doesn’t make financial sense for Sony and Disney was getting a good deal being allowed to have the character in their films for next to nothing. Spider-Man would cost well over a billion for Disney to buy at this point and they basically had him for nothing.

Disney had a good deal and changed it because they saw dollar signs.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Yes, Spider-Man is repaired... but the reason he needed repairing in the first place was because they kept breaking him. Similar to Fox and the WB, Sony struggles to string together more than 2 straight movies which don't result in some sort of backlash which threatens the IP. The reason they gave Spider-Man to marvel in the first place was because they seem to be the only ones capable of doing this with any real level of consistency.

I won't say that it's absolutely certain Sony can't turn things around, but they sort of have something to prove IMO.

Spider-Man 1, 2, ASM, Venom, and Into the Spiderverse vs Spider-Man 3 (the highest grossing of the bunch) and ASM II.

Sony’s 5-2 on the property. It’s a little overstated that they are some terrible studio that can’t get the character right. Especially when I can make strong argument that all Marvel did to “repair” Spider-Man was attach their most popular character to his hip Nd make him Iron Man Jr with webs and then promote the most recent movie as a follow up to the highest grossing film ever to piggyback off it.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Unlike Marvel, which has proven that it can consistently make sequels that are significantly more successful than their predecessors, Sony has never done that with Spider-man domestically and only once internationally (SM3) in four tries. The difference Marvel made to the bottom line was hundreds of millions of dollars vs. TASM and its downward trajectory.

Luckily, Marvel doesn't need Spider-man for a while until they're ready for more group movies. By then, Sony will be desperate again (or gone from movie production/swallowed up by someone else) thanks to declining box office from two lackluster Holland movies and the need for another reboot.

Here’s the issue, if we accept even the lowest figures of what it’s reported Disney wanted. Every Spider-Man film going forward needs to make more than Far From Home for it to be worth Sony’s time. And that’s assuming Sony thinks it can’t make a Spider-Man film that makes more than Venom. Then it needs to make significantly more. And that’s also assuming the lowest figures are correct and the high ones are wrong.,

The reality is, no matter what the deal needs to make financial sense. From Sony’s perspective, the trade off of the deal was that Marvel got to use a character they didn’t own the rights to for virtually nothing. That’s not insignificant.

So let’s assume the result is what you think and Sony fails.

1. They’ll still likely make 2-3 films solo. That’s pushing things back 10 years at a min. So you’re talking 2029 when Marvel night get a chance to use the character again.

2. They’ll probably still at a minimum make 700 million or more in failure. So the same scenario arises where it only makes sense if Disney is willing to dramatically lower their cut from what they want now..

Even in a worst case scenario, Sony is probably going to be more willing to hold off on live action Spidey films and just keep putting out Venom and Spiderverse movies.

I don’t think either side needs the other at the moment. Both are in transition. But realistically they are both going to survive soli

[Darthcyberbandicoot]

It may be interesting to see how this plays out. I actually had this on my mind for a while and even made a video about it and other Spider-Man related things. I have to wonder, where will Spider-Man go from here?

[jetengine]

If we start playing the inflation game then we get into silliness like how no movies ever made as much money as an 80 year old movie.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

If we start playing the inflation game then we get into silliness like how no movies ever made as much money as an 80 year old movie.

No that's different. Gone With the Wind was released at a time when the industry was different, there was no home release, and films stayed in theaters forever.

It's perfectly valid to acknowledge inflation with a movie from 2002, 2004 and 2007 in a comparison with films 10 years later. It's also ridiculous to think that the international market, particularly with the Chinese market opening up wouldn't have pushed those films over a billion. The difference between Spider-Man 1-3 and Far From Home is essentially that market and even the safest estimates of inflation.

It's kinda ridiculous to act like those films weren't the equivalent to Avengers level films back in the 2000's.

[80sbaby]

Companies don't care about inflation. It's silly to use anyways, as we have no clue if said film would have made as much today as it did when originally released.

[Colossus1980]

It's perfectly valid to acknowledge inflation with a movie from 2002, 2004 and 2007 in a comparison with films 10 years later. It's also ridiculous to think that the international market, particularly with the Chinese market opening up wouldn't have pushed those films over a billion. The difference between Spider-Man 1-3 and Far From Home is essentially that market and even the safest estimates of inflation.

It's kinda ridiculous to act like those films weren't the equivalent to Avengers level films back in the 2000's.

Very true. The first Spider-Man was I think number 6 of all time domestic when the movie run was over.

However imagine if Far From Home was the first Spider-Man to come out in the market? The pent-up demand for Spider-Man was gigantic back in the day. Huge. It's hard being the 6th film in a franchise in terms of creating that first excitement the first one did. No Spider-Man is ever going to match the first one in terms of adjusting for inflation. Well nearly impossible. I'm sure there are some people who just roll their eyes at another Spidey movie. The luster can wear off the more we get.

[Theleviathan]

That’s well and good but Sony owns the film rights so any ability the MCU has to use Spidey cake down to the will of Sony to collaborate. Disney does not own the rights and they got the character in their films for virtually nothing.

And I would push back heavily on a lot of that. The first 3 Spider-Man films made more adjusting for inflation (not even counting a more robust international market) than everything but 3 of the 4 Avengers films and Black Panther. Then Venom who is a villain a stupid amount of money. Even the one really terrible film Sony made (ASM II) till made 700 million.

The idea that Sony needed Disney is overstated. Their issue was they were going in a direction that got the worst financial return so far and they weren’t confident in it and working with Disney was just more sure thing while they figured things out.

The long and short of it is, Disney really had no business asking for more. It doesn’t make financial sense for Sony and Disney was getting a good deal being allowed to have the character in their films for next to nothing. Spider-Man would cost well over a billion for Disney to buy at this point and they basically had him for nothing.

Disney had a good deal and changed it because they saw dollar signs.

Firsts, they did not get him for "virtually nothing" They lent out their creative teams which is no small thing. Was it a fine deal for Disney? Sure, but now you're spinning too hard the other way.

Secondly, Sony was not 5-2. That's counting Spiderman 3 which killed that franchise. 4-3 is the best they can do and even that is ignoring that most people thought Venom was terrible but fun.

Thirdly, it is not "overstated" when the CEO of Sony says, out loud in quotes, (paraphrasing) "We went to Disney because we've been sucking it up on Spidey and Marvel is all but a guarantee to save us"

Disney had an acceptable deal. They didn't have a "good" deal because all they got was 5%. Everything else they got they already had the rights to. They lent their creative power and machinery to Sony and asked for very little in return. It worked well for them, they got to highlight Spiderman, and save Spidey from basically universal boredom and disgust in the movie-going public. They reached too far in this deal I'd say, but they probably thought they could strong-arm Sony. It didn't work.

[XPac]

Spider-Man 1, 2, ASM, Venom, and Into the Spiderverse vs Spider-Man 3 (the highest grossing of the bunch) and ASM II.

Sony’s 5-2 on the property. It’s a little overstated that they are some terrible studio that can’t get the character right. Especially when I can make strong argument that all Marvel did to “repair” Spider-Man was attach their most popular character to his hip Nd make him Iron Man Jr with webs and then promote the most recent movie as a follow up to the highest grossing film ever to piggyback off it.

Eh ... Venom DID very well at the box office (Not unlike Spider-Man 3) but had a fairly mixed reaction from critics and audiences. Again, there's a reason they had marvel do the reboot. I won't say they can't EVER get it right ... But like Fox and WB they lack the consistency that marvel has.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Companies don't care about inflation. It's silly to use anyways, as we have no clue if said film would have made as much today as it did when originally released.

That’s because retroactively it’s not relevant. When Spider-Man 3 made a **** ton of money those dollars got them further than a dollar today. Yeah I bet Disney today wishes the dollars they got for their movies were worth what they were a decade ago.

This is like a dismissive non argument. We all know the reality of the situation.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Firsts, they did not get him for "virtually nothing" They lent out their creative teams which is no small thing. Was it a fine deal for Disney? Sure, but now you're spinning too hard the other way.

Secondly, Sony was not 5-2. That's counting Spiderman 3 which killed that franchise. 4-3 is the best they can do and even that is ignoring that most people thought Venom was terrible but fun.

Thirdly, it is not "overstated" when the CEO of Sony says, out loud in quotes, (paraphrasing) "We went to Disney because we've been sucking it up on Spidey and Marvel is all but a guarantee to save us"

Disney had an acceptable deal. They didn't have a "good" deal because all they got was 5%. Everything else they got they already had the rights to. They lent their creative power and machinery to Sony and asked for very little in return. It worked well for them, they got to highlight Spiderman, and save Spidey from basically universal boredom and disgust in the movie-going public. They reached too far in this deal I'd say, but they probably thought they could strong-arm Sony. It didn't work.

This is incredibly revisionist

1. Spider-Man 3 did not kill the franchise and anyone who thinks that is incredibly misinformed. You want to know how much confidence Sony had in moving forward? Tobey McGuire signed the biggest actors contract in history at the time for Spider-Man 4, well after the third film came out. They were ready to go. The problem was Raimi couldn’t get a script that he was satisfied with and he knew that they were rebooting once he was done because all the actors were publicly talking about how they were drained by the films. When Raimi told Sony he couldn’t do a script they moved on.

2. Disney had a good deal. They exchanged oversight from Feige for Spider-Man, one of the world’s biggest characters, in their films. That’s not a massive investment from Disney. Literally all the financing came from Sony, the crew came from Sony, the contracts came from Sony, the production came from Sony. Feige who Disney already employed was told to give them oversite.

It would cost billions for Disney to get Spider-Man from Sony, having Feige involved is in fact virtually nothing in comparison to that