Sony's credit rating cut to "junk"...Implications for Spider-Man?

[Admiral James Kirk]

I see Spider-Man as a franchise that could keep going indefinitely. The last one wasn't even that great. IMO, it felt like an inferior retread of the first movie. Even still it made a ton of money.

I liked it more !

Agreed. The first Raimi Spider-Man movie was mediocre at best.

 

[Christopher]

I think both screen versions of Spidey are good, and I like it that they take very different approaches so that they complement each other. The first film suffered a bit by having to cover some of the same beats of the origin, but that shouldn't be a problem going forward (well, depending on what they do with the Osborns).

 

[Ian Keldon]

And it should also be remembered that Marvel studios are notoriously thrifty. If Spidey's right go up to the highest bidder, then, while we would all like to think that Marvel is the webslinger's natural home - but they could well be outbid by another studio.

Or they might regain the rights for nothing, depending on the exact nature of their contract with Sony. If the rights are "non-transferrable", then ONLY Sony would have the right to make Spider-Man under that contract. An end to Sony's entertainment division might see an automatic reversion of rights to Marvel.

I don't KNOW that's the case, but such a restrictive contract would be typical of Marvel.

 

[Ian Keldon]

That is a good point that I hadn't considered. Sony might want to release a Spider-Man movie to compete with say Iron Man, but Marvel would have no reason to release both films and split the box office.

Splitting the box office is exactly WHY studios typically don't release big films at the same time by "gentlemens' agreement". Blockbuster-scale movies are too big of an investment to risk sending directly up against each other and not getting maximum box office in return.

 

[Dream]

And it should also be remembered that Marvel studios are notoriously thrifty. If Spidey's right go up to the highest bidder, then, while we would all like to think that Marvel is the webslinger's natural home - but they could well be outbid by another studio.

Or they might regain the rights for nothing, depending on the exact nature of their contract with Sony. If the rights are "non-transferrable", then ONLY Sony would have the right to make Spider-Man under that contract. An end to Sony's entertainment division might see an automatic reversion of rights to Marvel.

I don't KNOW that's the case, but such a restrictive contract would be typical of Marvel.

Well, let's look at how FOX tried to deal with its expiring Daredevil rights before it finally reverted back to Marvel.

There were NEVER any talks about selling the rights to any other studio right?

 

[Ian Keldon]

That's right. A better option would be to have different studios retain the rights so you could get more movies overall, but just have them coordinate creatively so that they could be in continuity with each other.

Except that the bean-counters don't think that way historically. Rob Liefeld had an X-Men related project turned down in Mavel's comic division because they "were not in the business of generating IP for Fox studios".

If those rumors about a more congenial attitude are true, that might be changing, but I haven't seen enough for me to consider it confirmed yet.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Well, let's look at how FOX tried to deal with its expiring Daredevil rights before it finally reverted back to Marvel.

There were NEVER any talks about selling the rights to any other studio right?

I don't know, to be honest, but there isn't a "standard contract" for these things. Different franchise rights were sold off at different points in time with different CEOs in charge, so each contract may read differently.

 

[Dream]

Splitting the box office is exactly WHY studios typically don't release big films at the same time by "gentlemens' agreement". Blockbuster-scale movies are too big of an investment to risk sending directly up against each other and not getting maximum box office in return.

Also during the summer, studios can get away with releasing a huge movie every single week. They can also release two different big movies on the same day so long as they are going for two very different audiences like... Twilight and James Bond.

 

[Venardhi]

So rather than any films what about the PS4? After all the PS3 is what the third most popular of the 360/PS3/Wii generation consoles. The PS2 was number one If I recall correctly.

Saying your third most popular of the current generation consoles is just a nice way of saying your dead last!

The PS3 and 360 have both sold around 70 million consoles.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Splitting the box office is exactly WHY studios typically don't release big films at the same time by "gentlemens' agreement". Blockbuster-scale movies are too big of an investment to risk sending directly up against each other and not getting maximum box office in return.

Also during the summer, studios can get away with releasing a huge movie every single week. They can also release two different big movies on the same day so long as they are going for two very different audiences like... Twilight and James Bond.

Correct, which is why your example (Spide-Man vs Iron Man) would never happen. They're aimed at the same audience.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Another factor may be how separate Sony keeps its entertainment division from its manufacturing division. If they're all free-standing divisions, with 'Chinese walls' (or Japanese walls in this case) between them, then Sony's tv and electronics may not be able to benefit from the sale of their ents division - it all depends on how creatively their accounts are set up.

And it should also be remembered that Marvel studios are notoriously thrifty. If Spidey's right go up to the highest bidder, then, while we would all like to think that Marvel is the webslinger's natural home - but they could well be outbid by another studio.

Or Disney could buy the rights to Spider Man, that would be the next best thing. No one has more money than Disney. If they think they'll profit by giving Marvel access to Spidey, they'll spend the dough. It would be peanuts compared to what they spent getting their hands on Star Wars.

That's a good point, I'd forgotten about Disney's deep pockets. Of course, having spent all that money on Spider-man and with them already having the Marvel movie verse rights, Disney may not want to spend all that money on yet another franchise.

I think both screen versions of Spidey are good, and I like it that they take very different approaches so that they complement each other. The first film suffered a bit by having to cover some of the same beats of the origin, but that shouldn't be a problem going forward (well, depending on what they do with the Osborns).

You mean the first of the Webb movies, as oppose to the first of all the big screen Spidey movies (the 2002 one), right?

And it should also be remembered that Marvel studios are notoriously thrifty. If Spidey's right go up to the highest bidder, then, while we would all like to think that Marvel is the webslinger's natural home - but they could well be outbid by another studio.

Or they might regain the rights for nothing, depending on the exact nature of their contract with Sony. If the rights are "non-transferrable", then ONLY Sony would have the right to make Spider-Man under that contract. An end to Sony's entertainment division might see an automatic reversion of rights to Marvel.

I don't KNOW that's the case, but such a restrictive contract would be typical of Marvel.

Well, let's look at how FOX tried to deal with its expiring Daredevil rights before it finally reverted back to Marvel.

There were NEVER any talks about selling the rights to any other studio right?

I think part of the problem there was that by the time it became evident that Fox couldn't get their DD reboot up in time to avoid the reversion of the rights, the property was basically unsellable. Fox tried to get a relaunch with David Slade at the helm and then, after he bailed, Joe Carnahan made an unsuccessful pitch. By the time Fox decided that they didn't want to make the movie, the rights were only weeks away from expiring.

So even if Fox could have sold on the rights to another studio - and you may well be right that there is a restrictive covenant about selling on the rights, I don't honestly know the answer - the reality is that no other studio was going to do so as they were also going to have to get the whole shebang into operation in an unfeasibly short period of time.

 

[Christopher]

I think both screen versions of Spidey are good, and I like it that they take very different approaches so that they complement each other. The first film suffered a bit by having to cover some of the same beats of the origin, but that shouldn't be a problem going forward (well, depending on what they do with the Osborns).

You mean the first of the Webb movies, as oppose to the first of all the big screen Spidey movies (the 2002 one), right?

Yes, that was what I meant.

 

[Kelthaz]

Correct, which is why your example (Spide-Man vs Iron Man) would never happen. They're aimed at the same audience.

That was my example actually.

 

[Ian Keldon]

^OOPS! Sorry!

 

[Starbreaker]

After all the PS3 is what the third most popular of the 360/PS3/Wii generation consoles.

90% of X-Box 360 owners have to buy about 4 before the RROD stops.

 

[Thestral]

I don't really care who owns the rights, but I really don't want to see a reboot again so soon.

Or I guess more accurately, I don't want to see Garfield and Stone recast and another origin story told, because as much as I really liked Raimi's Spider-Man movies, I liked this last one even better. If Marvel got ahold of the property and tied it in loosely with their ongoing universe I'd be fine with that so long as it doesn't interfere with what Webb's planning for the second movie.

 

[Sindatur]

I don't really care who owns the rights, but I really don't want to see a reboot again so soon.

Or I guess more accurately, I don't want to see Garfield and Stone recast and another origin story told, because as much as I really liked Raimi's Spider-Man movies, I liked this last one even better. If Marvel got ahold of the property and tied it in loosely with their ongoing universe I'd be fine with that so long as it doesn't interfere with what Webb's planning for the second movie.

I really don't think future ownership will interfere with the next movie. IMHO, it will be claimed by the current Sony owners as "in the pipeline" and they will have full rights to it.

Movie 3, will likely be under discussion, but, I think II will proceed basically unimpeded

 

[Dude]

In terms of competing with each other on releases, keep in mind that both Amazing Spider-Man and Dark Knight Rises were released in the same month and ASM followed Avengers by only 6 weeks. Currently, they are 1, 2, and 4 on the list for highest grosses this year. It's possible that Skyfall or Twilight may outpace ASM, probable that The Hobbit will. But by any stretch, all three major comic book movies were wildly profitable this summer. There's plenty of room in the market.