Glad to hear it, especially since the cliffhanger means that this one will probably be one of the most direct sequels we've gotten yet, other than Infinity War and Endgame.
Spidey OUT of MCU
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
They were. But shortly you'll start hearing chatter about how clever they were, "playing along game," uh-huh uh-huh.
Expect that.
I don't think Sony has any real creative input into what Marvel does with the character in their own movies. If his final appearance in say in an Avengers movie, theoretically they can kill him off (again!
) and have him "gone"from the MCU. Now Sony may be free to go right on making Spider-man movies on their own, but if Holland chooses that time to bow out too, then they're most likely back to rebooting it again.Yeah, I don't think Disney would be that stupid, since that just puts Sony in a position to play silly buggers again in a few years. It'd be a long term deal, set in stone to make sure this wont' have to be renegotiated all over again in 2 or 3 years. That i's basically just two movies says to me Marvel either wants to round the character out and move on, or they know Sony won't be relevant in 2-3 years.
So far as I understand, the deal Sony went for was Disney's original offer from a while back. Which means Sony were holding out for better terms. That they chose to accept it *now* just days after the SW announcement to me smacks of capitulation. I mean they couldn't even budge Disney down a single percent OR get any of the merch profits as I suggested back in August might be on the table.
Make no mistake, The Mouse was in the position of strength here, not Sony. I mean Disney can loose Spider-Man and just eat the loss of profit and investment and not even break stride, while for Sony going it alone is 1) more expensive since they don't have a co-financier 2) more risky due to their previous failed attempts at keeping this IP going and the absence of a larger mega-franchise like the MCU to buoy up the audience numbers.
What about FF...
I'd love to see that but it only works if the FF are an established team. Though I guess Pete could seek out Reed as a replacement Tony.
My recollection is that Disney originally pushed for 25% for an agreement renewal prior to Far From Home's release and Sony rejected it (or stonewalled it). Once the movie made a Billion, Disney felt they had an even stronger negotiating position and asked for 50%. Obviously, if Sony was unhappy with 25%, they're certainly not going to appreciate 50%. But, in light of the movie's success, some compromises where Marvel Studios will reference Sony's side movies, the public backlash against Sony, Sony decided it was in their interests to reconsider that original 25% offer and Disney, I'm sure, recognized that 50% was a non-starter.
Time to lock the thread?Time to change the thread title!
They do. Sony, contractually, has final say over what happens to Spider-Man in MCU films.
Let's be honest here. We all know Sony's "final say" consists of signing checks to Marvel and picking up the finished product. Their story input is nil.
Not really. They'll protect the character's value to their projects, to the point of walking away from Disney.
Sony absolutely does own the movie rights to Spider-Man. If anything, Marvel was the one who is leasing him for his appearances in Avengers movies.
Sony only have the rights to release movies about Spider-Man. And the rights revert to Marvel if Sony goes more than seven years without a theatrical release. That's not ownership.
Sony has complete creative control, if they choose to exercise it. If Marvel had any creative power over Sony's efforts whatsoever, then the Andrew Garfield movies wouldn't have been such a mess. The Sony hack reveal that Kevin Feige delivered pages worth of on- target notes about the script of Amazing Spider-Man 2 that Sony chose to completely ignore.
Nobody else can use the character in a theatrical setting without incurring the wrath of Sony's lawyers. Granted, there are conditions from the sale that could see the ownership return to Marvel, but until such time, Sony is indeed the owner of the Spider-Man IP in theatrical form.
Last edited:
You keep reversing the facts.
This isnt "my word"; it's the word of Bob Iger.
This is a distortion/reversal of the facts.
Marvel Studios is the company that leases the filmic rights to the Spider-Man property.
Because they were notes, advice. Marvel still has a measure of control over the portrayal of the character (as Spider-Man is Marvel's property, this prevents the leasee from "poisoning the well" by making egregious changes), and there are several mandatory traits that are not allowed to be altered.
Per the Sony hack emails, (and to quote a Variety article) Spider-Man traits must always strictly conform to the following list: male; does not torture; does not kill in defense of self or others; does not use foul language beyond PG-13; does not smoke tobacco; does not sell/distribute illegal drugs; does not abuse alcohol; does not have sex before the age of 16; does not have sex with anyone below the age of 16; and is not a homosexual (unless Marvel has portrayed that alter ego as a homosexual). The Peter Parker character traits include: his full name is Peter Benjamin Parker; he is Caucasian and heterosexual; his parents become absent from his life during his childhood; from the time his parents become absent he is raised by Aunt May and Uncle Ben in New York City; he gains his powers while attending either middle school or college; he gains his powers from being bitten by a spider; he designs his first red and blue costume; the black costume is a symbiote and not designed by him; he is raised in a middle class household in Queens, New York; he attends or attended high school in Queens, New York; and he attends or attended college in New York City.