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

[Farealmer]

I've seen the marvel movies BEFORE Disney bought marvel and I've seen them after... and I'm at least very very glad Disney got control of everything. Outside of marvel, everything is pretty much hit and miss. Fox and Sony can maybe get 2 out of 3 movies right before taking the franchise, but the MCU is 2 dozen movies strong. No real weak links in the chain yet. If anything the MCU movies are actually doing BETTER. Competition may be good in theory... in practice to Sony and Fox these are just money grabs. And it shows after a certain point.

This, x-men and spider man are as much popular for the great animated series kids saw in the 90s as they are for the movies. Iron man and Black panther were virtual B lists if not C in Panther's case and both have gotten a level of popularity they never had before. The MCU will be well known in the future alone for bringing lesser known characters to the forefront. While sony and fox basically used well established characters that had popular series preceding their movies. IDK how someone could think that isn't impactful or meaningful.

As far as other comic book properites outside of marvel and DC... they exist. They're not as high profile and won't necessarily get you a billion dollars, but they are out there. And hopefully they get to see the light of day too. Not that I blame Sony or Fox for wanting to use Marvel characters over something from Image or whatever... just saying what I would prefer seeing. Marvel does a better job with their characters than anyone else... so let them use their characters. Other studios can bring to life other comic book IP's, which deserve it too.

This as well, that why it cool to see Netflix get millerworld. I am not that big of a fan of it but I am willing to become one with the shows are good. We need more big money getting these unknown brands and making them big. The way disney did with lesser known marvel characters. At this point sony has mixed results even with a money printer like Spiderman. And let's not even start with fox and the Fantastic four. The unknown comics are unknown because no big companies want to bet on them. That's killing creatively more than disney owning marvel properties ever will.

[ComicJunkie21]

I've seen the marvel movies BEFORE Disney bought marvel and I've seen them after... and I'm at least very very glad Disney got control of everything. Outside of marvel, everything is pretty much hit and miss. Fox and Sony can maybe get 2 out of 3 movies right before taking the franchise, but the MCU is 2 dozen movies strong. No real weak links in the chain yet. If anything the MCU movies are actually doing BETTER. Competition may be good in theory... in practice to Sony and Fox these are just money grabs. And it shows after a certain point.

As far as other comic book properites outside of marvel and DC... they exist. They're not as high profile and won't necessarily get you a billion dollars, but they are out there. And hopefully they get to see the light of day too. Not that I blame Sony or Fox for wanting to use Marvel characters over something from Image or whatever... just saying what I would prefer seeing. Marvel does a better job with their characters than anyone else... so let them use their characters. Other studios can bring to life other comic book IP's, which deserve it too.

As far as characters drinking, doing drugs, having sex, etc.. got a bit of the less cookie cutter stuff on things like Net Flicks. The MCU isn't JUST the movies... we can get the best of both worlds due to the different options we now have.

You mean "did have" all of the marvel netflix shows were cancelled when disney announced their streaming service making them Netflix's direct competition. Sony is currently the last man standing so to speak in regards to Marvel content outside of Disney.

[ComicJunkie21]

There seemed to be plenty of that in the Netflix shows.

Which have been cancelled due to Disney creating a streaming service that is now a direct competitor.

[Farealmer]

Which have been cancelled due to Disney creating a streaming service that is now a direct competitor.

But they existed for awhile. You acted like as long as Disney held any marvel property it couldn't happen, despite it happening for years.

[ComicJunkie21]

But they existed for awhile. You acted like as long as Disney held any marvel property it couldn't happen, despite it happening for years.

I'm not acting like that as stated in an earlier post, as long as Marvel falls under the disney umbrella they will be limited to do anything that is outside of Disney's brand. Think about it, if Disney wanted that type of content that was on Netflix they would've had it. Disney does not have an interest in making certain toned media that isolates its core audience. If you are okay with having mcu toned content and not daredevil, logan, or deadpool toned content then it's fine but if you like different creative variety that's almost gone because Marvel isn't standalone entity anymore and Disney makes strategic moves that make them direct competition to other entities who would never promote or pay for their competitor's content. Fans need to look at things from a business perspective and not always from a consumer perspective, then most would see what's about to occur with Marvel's content. Heck even Pixar is tired of Disney's umbrella making them do the same thing over and over again.

[Farealmer]

I'm not acting like that as stated in an earlier post, as long as Marvel falls under the disney umbrella they will be limited to do anything that is outside of Disney's brand. Think about it, if Disney wanted that type of content that was on Netflix they would've had it. Disney does not have an interest in making certain toned media that isolates its core audience. If you are okay with having mcu toned content and not daredevil, logan, or deadpool toned content then it's fine but if you like different creative variety that's almost gone because Marvel isn't standalone entity anymore and Disney makes strategic moves that make them direct competition to other entities who would never promote or pay for their competitor's content. Fans need to look at things from a business perspective and not always from a consumer perspective, then most would see what's about to occur with Marvel's content. Heck even Pixar is tired of Disney's umbrella making them do the same thing over and over again.

They still owned those brands while the netflix shows were running. It means it could happen again. The absolutist stance you are taking stands in opposition with what we already saw. Yes, they are playing things closer to the vest now because after endgame they want to rebuild up after what was the climax of the last 3 phases. But that doesn't preclude any r rated things in the future. Unless you have a time machine you are keeping secret.

Also looking back at some things I quoted from you earlier I'd like to ask a couple things.

For true fans of superhero content most want the cinematic versions to truly encompass and represent the characters that they liked in the comics and sometimes that doesn't fit into Disney's cookie cut brand.

1. Is that a no true Scotsman fallacy?
2. Where is the data for the most part that I bolded?


You seem to make certain assumptions about what people want as far as comic movies, what makes a "true fan", and what will happen in the future. I am curious where these assumptions come from?

[JKtheMac]

I understand what you're saying and it's about Disney having control over a property that makes a lot of money. Disney wanting more control is understanable because licensing and profitability however any deal would need to be more than 20 percent for them to be able to have the kind of control they are wanting, which is too much for Sony to justify with a proven property. I also want to point out we don't know what other non-monetary provisions were on the table that also could have affected the breakdown of this deal.

No it wouldn’t. It would just need to keep the current arrangement going. Every single Spider-Man movie Disney have to pay 32 Million to allow them to fully leverage the marking rights. If they don’t do that they can’t market Spider-Man movies unilaterally, so they have to be careful to separate out any licences that have any movie connection and either cancel them or give Sony half the revenue.

People like LEGO are interested in movie licences not comic licences. Luxury toys are almost exclusively Movie related. The cartoons are often spin-off properties, so hard to separate. Go walk around the shops near Christmas, those random Spider-Man products are mostly movie related. So is that calendar.

It effectively ties one hand behind Disney’s back. Is that pillowcase a comic book licence or a movie licence. Right now nobody cares. But that could change. Because Disney didn’t secure full merchandising rights, they struck an ongoing deal for them. The later MCU deal is merely an amendment to the 2011 deal. That very deal is being renegotiated. That is the deal that is being misrepresented in the press as all about Feige. In the context of a make-believe world where the press think Disney already bought the licences outright. Because the entertainment press never fact checks, they just use words like ‘reportedly’ and point to other ill informed press sources. They are used to writing about actors and gossip, not finance.

So effectively Disney need to come to terms. Either that or they go back to their shareholders and say:

‘You know that huge licensing deal we did with Sony. The one that helps pay for our movies and helps keep the whole of Disney in the black, in these difficult times when we are forced to invest heavily in new markets like streaming. It’s all over. From now on every licence needs extra legal eyes and we effectively turn the clock back to before 2011 when we were not making 1.5 Billion a year almost pure profit.’

(325 million in 2011, 1.28 Billion in 2012 - so around a billion more with the deal secured with current expectations of at least 1.5 Billion. Huge money for the cost of a small team overseeing the licences - less 32 million for 3 movies over that period because two were offset with production buy-in - and miscellaneous royalties for core MCU appearances.)

The bigger picture is that for Sony it’s about a movie franchise but for Disney it’s about their core business. Licensing IP. Spider-Man is almost as big a brand as the entire MCU according to the brand lists on Wikipedia.

Not the most pertinent citation because it’s a little random but contextually it is fascinating. Wikipedia It also cites the last decade or so of Spider-Man licence money.

[XPac]

I'm not acting like that as stated in an earlier post, as long as Marvel falls under the disney umbrella they will be limited to do anything that is outside of Disney's brand. Think about it, if Disney wanted that type of content that was on Netflix they would've had it. Disney does not have an interest in making certain toned media that isolates its core audience. If you are okay with having mcu toned content and not daredevil, logan, or deadpool toned content then it's fine but if you like different creative variety that's almost gone because Marvel isn't standalone entity anymore and Disney makes strategic moves that make them direct competition to other entities who would never promote or pay for their competitor's content. Fans need to look at things from a business perspective and not always from a consumer perspective, then most would see what's about to occur with Marvel's content. Heck even Pixar is tired of Disney's umbrella making them do the same thing over and over again.

If you follow the money trail, Disney was responsible for Kill Bill. There are plenty of things under the Disney umbrella which push boundries as far as content goes. Not that even necessarily think super hero movies need to push adult content... but Disney can and has put out content of that nature. And they still have shows on Hulu (though Hulu isn't necessarily a competitor). We're going to get Hellstrom for example.

But if people want edgier stuff, then marvel and DC probably aren't the away to go anyways. They like Disney to some degree make a more toned down product. Look at the Boys... started off as a DC book, but eventually made it's way to Dynamite and later Amazon. If you want edgy, go to the indy stuff. If other movie studios want to do stuff different than the MCU, that's the way to go.

[Konja7]

One question about the supposed deal where Disney wants 50/50 profit, was Disney planning to invest in the budget?

I read that Disney wanted to co-finance the next Spiderman movie. I'm not sure if this is right.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

What planet are you on? We just saw a hugely successful and profitable deal for both sides survive five cinematic appearances and only serve to grow what was described before the deal as a 4 Billion Dollar franchise by the Marvel press release. Pushing Spider-Man into markets it would otherwise have little traction in, like China.

If this deal is not put together in some form Disney will loose and Sony will loose. Neither wish to loose, nor can afford to at this juncture.

It survived because Disney got Spider-Man in their films and Sony didn’t dip into the profits and Sony got MCU connectors and assistance and Disney didn’t dip too much in their profits.

Anything over 25% makes it not worth it for Sony and Disney is going to need to come down a long way. The deal as it was worked fine. One side wants a change

[luprki]

Now I understand why Universal doesn’t want to make a Hulk solo movie.

[Rincewind]

Now I understand why Universal doesn’t want to make a Hulk solo movie.

Universal does not have the rights to make a Hulk solo movie. They have the rights to distribute a Hulk solo movie. Since Marvel has not produced one since 2008, the desire or lack thereof is entirely theoretical on your part.

[G. Boney]

One question about the supposed deal where Disney wants 50/50 profit, was Disney planning to invest in the budget?

I read that Disney wanted to co-finance the next Spiderman movie. I'm not sure if this is right.

Yes, all the reports I've seen and heard have said they the wanted to go 50/50 on the financing.

[luprki]

Universal does not have the rights to make a Hulk solo movie. They have the rights to distribute a Hulk solo movie. Since Marvel has not produced one since 2008, the desire or lack thereof is entirely theoretical on your part.

Which in this case is basically the same, Universal is in the position of saying no. Disney cannot and will not make a Hulk movie without Universal’s approval and Universal hasn’t been interest in working with Disney.

[Rincewind]

Which in this case is basically the same, Universal is in the position of saying no. Disney cannot and will not make a Hulk movie without Universal’s approval and Universal hasn’t been interest in doing that.

Nope. Marvel can make a solo Hulk movie at any time. Universal has the right to distribute, but has no option to cancel. If Universal does not distribute, then Disney can distribute it themselves.