And it's not a Marvel Studios movie. It just happens to have Marvel Studios involvement.
Last edited:
Spider-Man: Homecoming' anticipation thread
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
And it's not a Marvel Studios movie. It just happens to have Marvel Studios involvement.
It's co-produced by Marvel Studios. It's a movie set in the MCU, featuring characters from the MCU, following the overall narrative of the MCU.
Those facts matter more to people than a piece of paper signed between two massive corporations.
Actually, it's not. Homecoming is produced and financed completely by Sony, with Marvel Studios providing creative input (which is why they got to put their logo above the title).
You can't co-produce something if you're not going to benefit from it financially or be reimbursed, directly, for your input into it.
And yet none of those things make it a Marvel Studios movie.
Sony doesn't get to claim ownership of Captain America: Civil War even though it features characters they continue to own the rights to.
It's an MCU movie, it's gonna have a Marvel Studios logo on it, people are gonna call it a "Marvel Movie", because it is that.
I really don't get why this bothers you so much, we're not a party in the legal proceedings so we don't have an obligation to asterisk every such mention with the intricate details of their deal.
That's the financial and legal side. Most of us are more interested in the creative and story side. Behind the scenes, yes, Sony still owns it. Everyone who's paying attention knows that already. But what's on the screen is set in the MCU, and the MCU people are shaping its story direction. The whole significance of the arrangement is that it's a compromise that benefits both sides -- Sony retains the rights and the profits, but Marvel gets to integrate Spider-Man into their universe where he belongs and to have a say in how their prestige character is handled onscreen. So everybody benefits, just not in the same way.
^ There's still a distinction that needs to be drawn, though, between what is and isn't a "Marvel movie".
Spider-Man Homecoming is not a "Marvel movie" even in the face of the fact that Marvel Studios had creative involvement in it.
Otherwise, you could use that term to describe every movie that has ever been released that featured a Marvel Comics character.
Spider-Man Homecoming is not a "Marvel movie" even in the face of the fact that Marvel Studios had creative involvement in it.
Otherwise, you could use that term to describe every movie that has ever been released that featured a Marvel Comics character.
Define "needs." If people are talking specifically about business and financial matters, then yeah, sure, it's relevant. If they're talking about the story content of what's onscreen, though, then it's just being pedantic to dwell on the legalities.
You're fighting a lost cause.
The only way you'll get people to call this a "Sony movie" is if it ends up sucking.
Since Spider-Man is a Marvel character, Spider-Man: Homecoming is, by definition, a Marvel movie, just like how the previous Spider-Man movies, the X-Men series, the Fantastic Four films, etc., are all Marvel movies despite not being part of the MCU.
Yup. The characters were created and are owned by Marvel Comics, even though different studios control the film rights to them. A lot of people think that controlling the film rights is the same thing as owning the characters outright, but it isn't. All the Marvel characters still appear together in the actual comic books, and in animated productions. What Fox and Sony have are licenses to do live-action screen adaptations of those characters -- exclusive licenses that remain in effect as long as the licensees continue to exercise them. Which is why the X-Men series has stayed in production and why we keep getting Fantastic Four and Spider-Man reboots every so often -- because the screen rights would automatically revert to Marvel after a certain number of years if the licensees didn't make use of them.
Yeah, nobody says "Did you see that Sony movie last weekend?" or "I can't wait for Friday's opening of the new Warner Brothers superhero movie!"
It's Marvel or DC for most people, based on the characters, not the company that owns them.
It's Marvel or DC for most people, based on the characters, not the company that owns them.
Well, as I said, Marvel and DC do ultimately own them. Fox and Sony just license them. A license is not ownership; it's permission from the actual owner to use the property. It's like renting or leasing. I don't own my apartment; my landlord does. But I signed a lease that gives me the right to live in my apartment, as long as I pay rent and abide by the other terms of the contract.
The difference, of course, is that the lessor of an apartment or the renter of a car can reclaim it relatively easily, while Marvel's licensees pretty much have a stranglehold on their movie rights as long as they continue to exercise them. That's because the deals were negotiated at a time when Marvel was in dire financial straits and the studios were able to dictate the terms in their favor.
Every article talking about the Sony/Marvel Studios partnership specifically referred to Sony "retaining rights ownership" of the Spider-Man property. Use of the term "ownership" carries with it a very specific connotation, which is that Sony, and not Marvel (Studios or otherwise) controls the rights to the character, not that they've "leased" them from Marvel (Studios or otherwise), so it's not actually as clear-cut as "Spider-Man is still a Marvel character and Sony only 'leases' the rights to use him on film".
Just because something's reported a certain way in the media, that doesn't make it gospel truth; reporters can certainly get things wrong. "Ownership" is a misleading way of putting it. If they "own" anything, they own the right to make movies based on the character. They do not own the character. Spider-Man, the X-Men, and the Fantastic Four all still appear in comics published by Marvel Comics and in animated series produced by Marvel Television. Marvel still has the rights to those characters in those media; Sony and Fox only have the live-action adaptation rights. And if you look at the openings of the Spidey, X-Men, and FF films, you will see a Marvel logo at the beginning along with the Sony or Fox logo, because Marvel still owns the underlying concepts. Look at the fine print on your DVDs of any Spidey or X-Men or FF movie, and you'll see a notice saying that Marvel has the copyright on the characters, while Sony or Fox has a copyright on the film itself.
The fact that reporters mistake owning the movie rights for owning the character outright is just a reflection of the cultural bias towards mass media. Movies are seen by tens of millions of people; comics are read by at most tens of thousands. So the movies loom larger in popular awareness. But it's only in the movies that control of the characters is split. In the comics, all the characters are still together in the same universe. Right now, there's a big Inhumans vs. X-Men event going on in the comics. The Thing of the Fantastic Four is (or was recently) one of the Guardians of the Galaxy. Spider-Man was one of the Fantastic Four a few years ago, replacing the Human Torch during a time when he was dead (he got better, as superheroes always do). It's all still one big integrated community in the comics, which -- however much people may forget it -- is the original, canonical form of these characters. Ditto for the animated shows, which have been able to have interactions between characters that are under separate license in live action, such as the Avengers facing Dr. Doom and Kang, or Spider-Man teaming up with Wolverine. It's only the live-action adaptation rights that are divided among different "owners."
When people say "Marvel films" they generally mean the Disney Marvel Studios ones, though, as opposed to the X-Men films.
Anyway, legal bullshit aside...I'm just glad that Spidey is now back at Marvel in the way that matters. Creatively.
I don't care that Sony is distributing, I only care that Marvel are making the creative decisions. And if Sony ends up making a lot of money, that's all good because it means we get to continue seeing Spidey movies.
I don't care that Sony is distributing, I only care that Marvel are making the creative decisions. And if Sony ends up making a lot of money, that's all good because it means we get to continue seeing Spidey movies.
Really? Granted, Marvel Studios is making most of the Marvel movies now and I could gather that there could be some confusion over which ones are MCU and not, but I always thought that "Marvel" movies meant "movies based on Marvel comic book series."
Same here.
I mostly mean MCU movies when I talk about "Marvel movies". There are Marvel movies and X-Men movies. And then there were Spider-Man movies. Not sure how I start to refer Homecoming. Probably by "that Marvel Spider-Man movie".
I think that a lot of people separate the X-Men movies from MCU, and refer MCU simply as Marvel movies.
MCU, or even longer Marvel Cinematic Universe, is hard to say when talking about these things in real life. Its simpler to just say Marvel movie.
I think that a lot of people separate the X-Men movies from MCU, and refer MCU simply as Marvel movies.
MCU, or even longer Marvel Cinematic Universe, is hard to say when talking about these things in real life. Its simpler to just say Marvel movie.
Similar threads
