Tom Hardy is Venom in new Sony Venom movie...

[Arsenal]

We only have the Wall Street Journal article to go on, but Marvel seemed interested in the Spider-Man rights specifically. So for other characters Sony presumably retain merchandise rights to the movies they have negotiated. This wasn't a one way deal. Previously Sony would have had to pay 5% of the movies to Marvel. What is not clear is whether this deal applies to movies beyond the current arrangement. It is important to remember Marvel didn't wave a magic wand and suddenly get Spider-Man back. Sony have a tight hold of the rights to him.

There is no reason to suspect this will cause any major problems between Marvel and Sony, who could just go their separate ways at any time. If they do Marvel will still keep the Spider-Man merchandising rights to these three movies and possibly future movies, but we don't actually know this for sure.

The merchandise deal was made back in 2011 prior to the Amazing Spider-Man movies being a thing and I don’t see why sony’s Seperate deal with Marvel studios in 2015 would change that arrangement.

[JKtheMac]

Perhaps it is worth going back to basics. This is what marvel published on their website when the deal was put in place:

Under the deal, the new Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film from Marvel's Cinematic Universe (MCU). Sony Pictures will thereafter release the next installment of its $4 billion Spider-Man franchise, on July 28, 2017, in a film that will be co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel and Amy Pascal, who oversaw the franchise launch for the studio 13 years ago. Together, they will collaborate on a new creative direction for the web slinger. Sony Pictures will continue to finance, distribute, own and have final creative control of the Spider-Man films.

Marvel and Sony Pictures are also exploring opportunities to integrate characters from the MCU into future Spider-Man films.

Notable points:
Sony Pictures will have final creative control of the Spider-Man films.
That last clause explains why all of the fan speculation is nonsense. If Sony are exploring opportunities to integrate characters from the MCU into future Spider-Man films, it is in their interest to do a certain amount of horse trading with Feige. This would include all the things people keep saying "Sony are not allowed to do". I would rephrase that as "It is currently in Sony's interests to tread carefully with the cross company deal and keep Feige happy." That is a big difference.

[JKtheMac]

The merchandise deal was made back in 2011 prior to the Amazing Spider-Man movies being a thing and I don’t see why sony’s Seperate deal with Marvel studios in 2015 would change that arrangement.

Because as was reported in the WSJ, Marvel amended that deal when they worked out their contract with Sony over the Sony MCU movies.

An archived copy is here.

The key here is that money need not change hands if the spider movies are a big enough success. This effectively hands Marvel a lot of control because Sony and everyone else trusts them to make good decisions and steer the ship. Any time Amy Pascal puts her foot down and potentially overrides Feige she is not just risking her own production profits, she could be accused of costing Sony $35 Million dollars. This is being misinterpreted in the press and by fans as Feige having creative control. Technically he doesn't but it would take a brave producer to override him.

[Killerbee911]

Sony own Spider-Man movie rights. The rest is pure speculation and almost certainly incorrect. Homecoming is not a Marvel movie it is a Sony movie. It is an MCU movie.

Pascal and Feige are both producers on the Spider-Man Movies. Sony are paying Marvel a producer fee for Feige’s involvement, so technically Feige is contracted to Sony while the deal is in place. This protects Sony if the deal breaks-up in the future.

You can say whatever you want the evidence points to what I am saying, Yeah it is speculation but you can't give a logical reason for Sony not using Spiderman or any direct ties to him in any real manner in Venom. I will repeat it again they didn't even have a Spiderman end credits cameo in Venom. Something like that is super small I mean there is not even a hint of masked hero in the universe. They didn't infer Spiderman was in the universe. I will stick to my speculation

[Arsenal]

Because as was reported in the WSJ, Marvel amended that deal when they worked out their contract with Sony over the Sony MCU movies.

An archived copy is here.

The key here is that money need not change hands if the spider movies are a big enough success. This effectively hands Marvel a lot of control because Sony and everyone else trusts them to make good decisions and steer the ship. Any time Amy Pascal puts her foot down and potentially overrides Feige she is not just risking her own production profits, she could be accused of costing Sony $35 Million dollars. This is being misinterpreted in the press and by fans as Feige having creative control. Technically he doesn't but it would take a brave producer to override him.

That has nothing to do merchandise rights though. Maybe I’m missing a sentence in there somewhere but I’ve read the article 3 times yet don’t see anything that suggests Marvel’s control of Spider-Man merchandise is any different now than it was in 2011-2014. Sure, Marvel has more creative input on the film side but it seems like the 2011 deal regarding merchandise doesn’t change.

[Username taken]

I thought Marvel never licensed Spider-man merchandise rights because it was always making them a ton of money?

[Username taken]

I'm surprised there were no Spider-man references at all in Venom to be honest.

Spider-man Homecoming and Into the Spider-Verse are all Sony productions (although Marvel studios had creative input on Spider-man: Homecoming) and Marvel studios is just basically "borrowing" the character for their universe.

Amy Paschal did say (rather loosely) some years ago that Tom Holland Spider-man will be folded back into whatever Sony plans to do with the character going forward, so I want to assume that Spider-man will feature in Sony's Spider-man universe.

[JKtheMac]

That has nothing to do merchandise rights though. Maybe I’m missing a sentence in there somewhere but I’ve read the article 3 times yet don’t see anything that suggests Marvel’s control of Spider-Man merchandise is any different now than it was in 2011-2014. Sure, Marvel has more creative input on the film side but it seems like the 2011 deal regarding merchandise doesn’t change.

Yes it was to do with merchandising. I admit is is quite complex and may seem to be tangential but it isn't.

This was how Iger explained it to the Disney shareholders:

To that end, we recently completed a transaction with Sony Pictures to simplify our relationship. And then in the deal, we purchased Sony Pictures' participation in Spiderman merchandising, while at the same time, Sony Pictures purchased from us our participation in Spiderman films. This transaction will allow us to control and fully benefit from all Spiderman merchandising activity, while Sony will continue to produce and distribute Spiderman films. We won't be specific about the economics of this 2-way transaction, but we expect it will drive attractive returns for Disney.

Personally I suspect Iger wasn’t fully briefed or perhaps he would have put the hyphen in!

We now know that ‘purchase’ was reportedly a payment of $175 million, and a per movie payment of $35 Million. Since then, the cost Marvel and Sony agreed for Marvel’s ‘participation’ was that already agreed $35 Million. That way Marvel don’t need to pay Sony because they have a reciprocal arrangement.

Also Marvel agreed a clause that if the movies are successful to the tune of $750 million then they wouldn’t need to pay Sony for the merchandising rights, which technically means Sony would have to cough up the ‘participation’ fee but they would still be up on the deal.

That ongoing arrangement maintains the status quo. If it were to fall-apart how exactly do the “Spiderman merchandising” rights default?

We don’t know exactly what is meant by ‘Spiderman merchandising’. We can assume that it meant all merchandising for various Spider-Man characters, but I don’t think we can fully conclude this.

So for example, are Marvel paying Sony $35 Million for Venom rights? That would seem odd. Will Venom make the required $750 million, and will it matter?

Sony are not paying for participation for Venom. Does that mean Marvel are still paying for rights? Again we don't know but we can assume not.

Nothing is a s simple as it seems. Including the "fact" that Marvel paid Sony for merchandising rights.

[Username taken]

Yes it was to do with merchandising. I admit is is quite complex and may seem to be tangential but it isn't.

This was how Iger explained it to the Disney shareholders:


Personally I suspect Iger wasn’t fully briefed or perhaps he would have put the hyphen in!

We now know that ‘purchase’ was reportedly a payment of $175 million, and a per movie payment of $35 Million. Since then, the cost Marvel and Sony agreed for Marvel’s ‘participation’ was that already agreed $35 Million. That way Marvel don’t need to pay Sony because they have a reciprocal arrangement.

Also Marvel agreed a clause that if the movies are successful to the tune of $750 million then they wouldn’t need to pay Sony for the merchandising rights, which technically means Sony would have to cough up the ‘participation’ fee but they would still be up on the deal.

That ongoing arrangement maintains the status quo. If it were to fall-apart how exactly do the “Spiderman merchandising” rights default?

We don’t know exactly what is meant by ‘Spiderman merchandising’. We can assume that it meant all merchandising for various Spider-Man characters, but I don’t think we can fully conclude this.

So for example, are Marvel paying Sony $35 Million for Venom rights? That would seem odd. Will Venom make the required $750 million, and will it matter?

Sony are not paying for participation for Venom. Does that mean Marvel are still paying for rights? Again we don't know but we can assume not.

Nothing is a s simple as it seems. Including the "fact" that Marvel paid Sony for merchandising rights.

I'm actually surprised to see that.

It means that Sony did have some licensing rights, the extent of which we really can't say.

[JKtheMac]

I'm surprised there were no Spider-man references at all in Venom to be honest.

Spider-man Homecoming and Into the Spider-Verse are all Sony productions (although Marvel studios had creative input on Spider-man: Homecoming) and Marvel studios is just basically "borrowing" the character for their universe.

Amy Paschal did say (rather loosely) some years ago that Tom Holland Spider-man will be folded back into whatever Sony plans to do with the character going forward, so I want to assume that Spider-man will feature in Sony's Spider-man universe.

Following from my analysis of the rights above I think we can draw a few conclusions.

In the interests of continued participation from Marvel, Sony may have agreed to more than the reported arrangement. They have probably marked out which parts of the Spider-verse are included in the MCU deal and which parts lie outside. Note however, this isn't because of Marvel 'insisting' this would be because of the joint interests of both parties.

So Venom merchandising probably sits squarely with Sony, but The Daily Bugle is in the joint participation area covered by the merchandising deal with Disney, hence the use of their rivals The Daily Globe in Venom. No money changes hands and Sony get to merchandise Venom however they want as long as they don't step into the 'joint' area.

This could change. If Venom suddenly makes a fortune, I could imagine him being welcomed with open arms into this joint participation area. Suddenly Venom vs Spider-Man would be a real possibility. That project would require either the same arrangement that is currently in place for Spider-Man, or some other agreement.

[JKtheMac]

I'm actually surprised to see that.

It means that Sony did have some licensing rights, the extent of which we really can't say.

The only reason there is any surprise is because the press keep getting the whole thing wrong, over and over, and that is perpetuated by the fans.

[Ilan Preskovsky]

Man, this movie was bad.

You can check out my full review here but suffice it to say, I have no idea what the film's defenders are on about.

[Arsenal]

Yes it was to do with merchandising. I admit is is quite complex and may seem to be tangential but it isn't.

This was how Iger explained it to the Disney shareholders:


Personally I suspect Iger wasn’t fully briefed or perhaps he would have put the hyphen in!

We now know that ‘purchase’ was reportedly a payment of $175 million, and a per movie payment of $35 Million. Since then, the cost Marvel and Sony agreed for Marvel’s ‘participation’ was that already agreed $35 Million. That way Marvel don’t need to pay Sony because they have a reciprocal arrangement.

Also Marvel agreed a clause that if the movies are successful to the tune of $750 million then they wouldn’t need to pay Sony for the merchandising rights, which technically means Sony would have to cough up the ‘participation’ fee but they would still be up on the deal.

That ongoing arrangement maintains the status quo. If it were to fall-apart how exactly do the “Spiderman merchandising” rights default?

We don’t know exactly what is meant by ‘Spiderman merchandising’. We can assume that it meant all merchandising for various Spider-Man characters, but I don’t think we can fully conclude this.

So for example, are Marvel paying Sony $35 Million for Venom rights? That would seem odd. Will Venom make the required $750 million, and will it matter?

Sony are not paying for participation for Venom. Does that mean Marvel are still paying for rights? Again we don't know but we can assume not.

Nothing is a s simple as it seems. Including the "fact" that Marvel paid Sony for merchandising rights.

huh. If this was Sony and Disney "simplifying" their relationship, I don't even wanna know how messy the old one was.

[JKtheMac]

huh. If this was Sony and Disney "simplifying" their relationship, I don't even wanna know how messy the old one was.

Ha ha. Yes you do kind of have a point. But never forget Disney and Sony actually have a pretty good understanding that goes way back to before the ASM movies. Indeed they very nearly put this deal in place back then but decided to have one last punt. This deal is very favourable to both of them.

Even the reported modification that allowed Marvel not to pay the $35 million works in both sides' favour. It ensures a bigger commitment to the Sony movies by Disney, because they effectively get the merchandising rights for free and a bonus $35 Million if they make the movie a big success.

The mistake is to assume Disney and Sony are like Fox and Marvel used to be. That has never been the case.

Even the $175 million up front would have been a way of Marvel contributing to Homecoming. That financed Homecoming, even though Homecoming was officially and legally financed by Sony.

The stated cost of Homecoming is coincidently $175 million! That can't be a coincidence.

Everything comes down to that merchandising deal and how much that means to Disney. Sony can't leverage the character in the same way Marvel and Disney can and not easily without Marvel's cooperation. So Disney basically gave them a cash injection and a regular payment in order to make all the cash from toys, pillowcases, clothing etc. Marvel will probably happily continue to do this forever, as long as Sony can finance the movies.

P.S. The box office for homecoming was reportedly $880.2 million. I imagine Sony are quite pleased with the deal. That is certainly more than 35 + 750, and that is before TV and DVD rights.

P.P.S. Usually the movie producers would have to pay their investors with interest, out of the profits. In this deal Sony don't have to pay Disney except for the $35 Million. That is a bargain!

[choptop]

Sony don't need to cast somebody else they already have a Spider-Man under contract to THEM. One that has been broadly embraced by fans and critics. No reason to cast another one. Some people don't understand the Sony / Marvel deal and seem to think that an actor that Sony pay can't be used in a Sony movie. They are wrong.

They what to keep it apart from the MCU and do there own thing they have been trying for years and now it's happening.