Spidey OUT of MCU

[Rahul]

Is Ned a comic character or one made for the movies? Also they can do Mary Jane but not Michelle. Jason

The two "Marvel" Spider-man films are legally very much Sony movies. That means all characters in them belong to Sony. With the exclusion of special guests(tm) Tony Stark, Nick Fury etc.

But every character that appeared first in these movies - say, Michelle - is owned by Sony. Sony also owns "Mary Jane", as it's a Spider-Man character. That means changing her name to "Michelle" really only was an artistic choice. A nod to the comics, while still seperate from the comics or the Sam Raimi movies. Kevin Feige loves that, because it allows for more interesting and unpredictable stories. But Spider-Man was very mucch a work-for-hire by MARVEL for someone else.

The only thing that's iffy is weather or not Sony is allowed to name-drop "Tony Stark" or "the Avengers" going forward. They sure as hell aren't allowed to introduce more MCU elements (like namedropping Cpt. Marvel), or have more appereances (by, say, Happy Hogan). But Stark and the Avengers have been integral parts of the first two movies - which, again, are owned in their entirety by Sony. So there is very likely a special contract clause for this specific case (MCU elements that have already appeared on Spider-Man). But none of us knows the specifics.

 

[Rahul]

On an overall note: I'm very much on Sony's side here.
Yes, "The Amazing Spider-Man" sucked. But let's not forget: The Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies are what started the entire modern comicbook craze in the first place! Like, yes, there have been better comicbook movies since then. But the modern superhero age literally started out with Sony's Spider-Man movies! (Yes, "Blade" and Fox "X-Men" were first - but Spidey created the modern superhero template).

MARVEL makes really good movies currently. And I'm 100% sure Kevin Feige would love to continue this deal. I purely suspect the higher-ups at Disney here at play, seeing them producing a 1,2 bil. dollar movie, and getting greedy because they are not seeing a single penny of it.

But the thing is: Neither "Civil War", nor "Infinity War" or "Endgame" would have reached their ridiculous >>1 bio. dollars without Spidey! Yes, Spidey is that popular. But the actual "Spidey factor" in these movies is hard to quantify. The "Far From Home" earnings have a hard price tag, and Disney wants some of that sweet cake too....

 

[Jayson1]

I never understood the critism of the Sony Spidey movies except the part of rebooting to early but is something they all do now. The fact they make a bad Spidey film will happen when you make 5 of them. Plus the bad ones aren't even that bad next to Batman and Robin or Suicide Squard or none comic movies. I think I can point to some Larry the Cable Guy movies if you really want to watch a bad movie. Jason

 

[Grendelsbayne]

On an overall note: I'm very much on Sony's side here.
Yes, "The Amazing Spider-Man" sucked. But let's not forget: The Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies are what started the entire modern comicbook craze in the first place! Like, yes, there have been better comicbook movies since then. But the modern superhero age literally started out with Sony's Spider-Man movies! (Yes, "Blade" and Fox "X-Men" were first - but Spidey created the modern superhero template).

MARVEL makes really good movies currently. And I'm 100% sure Kevin Feige would love to continue this deal. I purely suspect the higher-ups at Disney here at play, seeing them producing a 1,2 bil. dollar movie, and getting greedy because they are not seeing a single penny of it.

But the thing is: Neither "Civil War", nor "Infinity War" or "Endgame" would have reached their ridiculous >>1 bio. dollars without Spidey! Yes, Spidey is that popular. But the actual "Spidey factor" in these movies is hard to quantify. The "Far From Home" earnings have a hard price tag, and Disney wants some of that sweet cake too....

Eh, maybe you can argue Civil War, but Homecoming's bo (and IM3's) suggests otherwise. Claiming the Avengers wouldn't crack a billion without Spider-Man is obviously ridiculous. They already did. Twice.

Whether Disney got greedy or Sony got greedy or something else is impossible to say without more reliable information, so I'm not on anyone's 'side'. But it's obvious that Marvel didn't 'need' Spidey just like it's obvious that Sony is saddled with serious mismanagement that doesn't bode well for the future of this franchise.

 

[Rahul]

Eh, maybe you can argue Civil War, but Homecoming's bo (and IM3's) suggests otherwise. Claiming the Avengers wouldn't crack a billion without Spider-Man is obviously ridiculous. They already did. Twice.

Whether Disney got greedy or Sony got greedy or something else is impossible to say without more reliable information, so I'm not on anyone's 'side'. But it's obvious that Marvel didn't 'need' Spidey just like it's obvious that Sony is saddled with serious mismanagement that doesn't bode well for the future of this franchise.

Yes, those movies would definitely be > 1bio. But probably not >2 bio., much less 2.7 bio. (or ">>1 bio." as I wrote, as in "much" higher). Because, yes, the entire MCU is bigger than Spider-Man. But Spider-Man is bigger than any single franchise within the MCU, even Iron Man.

Iron Man 3 made more money than any Spider-Man movie - but Iron Man specifically works because of the combination of the role and the actor: Robert Downey Jr. Spider-Man is in a similar ballpark pretty much with every actor close enough. Really: Spider-Man is the biggest single comicbook character of all time, even bigger than Superman and Batman, by pretty much any metric. So yeah - the MCU would be an absolute juggernaut with or without Spidey - but the truth is, it's not just MARVEL giving away box office to Sony - no, Spidey is a significant boost to the entirety of the MCU, more than the addition of the X-Men or Fantastic Four would be each. And more than the current helm of Disney seems to aknowledge.

 

[suarezguy]

I suspect Marvel did the cliffhanger ending to try to pressure Sony to continue, Sony should have sensed/realized that and pushed for a different ending. But if it was Sony who came up with it to try to pressure Marvel to continue that would be very foolish of Sony, to not see that fans would be more upset and, at it not continuing or in a different way, place more blame on Sony.

 

[Booji]

I guess Spider-Man will have to revert to a normal spandex suit for a Sony SM3. The Iron Man tech likely has to go.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The two "Marvel" Spider-man films are legally very much Sony movies. That means all characters in them belong to Sony. With the exclusion of special guests(tm) Tony Stark, Nick Fury etc.

But every character that appeared first in these movies - say, Michelle - is owned by Sony. Sony also owns "Mary Jane", as it's a Spider-Man character. That means changing her name to "Michelle" really only was an artistic choice. A nod to the comics, while still seperate from the comics or the Sam Raimi movies. Kevin Feige loves that, because it allows for more interesting and unpredictable stories. But Spider-Man was very mucch a work-for-hire by MARVEL for someone else.

The only thing that's iffy is weather or not Sony is allowed to name-drop "Tony Stark" or "the Avengers" going forward. They sure as hell aren't allowed to introduce more MCU elements (like namedropping Cpt. Marvel), or have more appereances (by, say, Happy Hogan). But Stark and the Avengers have been integral parts of the first two movies - which, again, are owned in their entirety by Sony. So there is very likely a special contract clause for this specific case (MCU elements that have already appeared on Spider-Man). But none of us knows the specifics.

Very good points! I think this is going to be much less noticeable change in the Spider-man movies than fans suspect. Marvel will be a little more affected on their side. But so what! They have a huge, HUGE cast of characters. They just do not mention Spider-man until and if this is ever worked out. You do not need to constantly mention every member of a shared universe to prove they still exist. Carol Danvers did not exist until they got around to a Captain Marvel movie and retroactively said she was part of Fury’s past.

This whole situation is Marvel’s creation. The only reason any other studios control their character’s film rights is Marvel sold them! They made really stupid deals in the past.

Imagine if after you moved out of your parents house they sold it for really cheap. But as time went on its value went way up. For sentimental reasons you explain to the new owners you want it back. For little money, though the current owners know you plan to sell or rent it for its current value!

It’s does not matter if it’s decades later and the people at Sony and Marvel have changed. A sale was made. Current Marvel has to deal with the bad descions it inherited.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I suspect Marvel did the cliffhanger ending to try to pressure Sony to continue, Sony should have sensed/realized that and pushed for a different ending. But if it was Sony who came up with it to try to pressure Marvel to continue that would be very foolish of Sony, to not see that fans would be more upset and, at it not continuing or in a different way, place more blame on Sony.

There’s no reason they can’t pick up right where Far From Home ended.

 

[DigificWriter]

There’s no reason they can’t pick up right where Far From Home ended.

Exactly.

Marvel Studios will end up being the loser here even if fanbois want to blame Sony.

 

[Noname Given]

The two "Marvel" Spider-man films are legally very much Sony movies. That means all characters in them belong to Sony. With the exclusion of special guests(tm) Tony Stark, Nick Fury etc.

But every character that appeared first in these movies - say, Michelle - is owned by Sony. Sony also owns "Mary Jane", as it's a Spider-Man character. That means changing her name to "Michelle" really only was an artistic choice. A nod to the comics, while still seperate from the comics or the Sam Raimi movies. Kevin Feige loves that, because it allows for more interesting and unpredictable stories. But Spider-Man was very mucch a work-for-hire by MARVEL for someone else.

The only thing that's iffy is weather or not Sony is allowed to name-drop "Tony Stark" or "the Avengers" going forward. They sure as hell aren't allowed to introduce more MCU elements (like namedropping Cpt. Marvel), or have more appereances (by, say, Happy Hogan). But Stark and the Avengers have been integral parts of the first two movies - which, again, are owned in their entirety by Sony. So there is very likely a special contract clause for this specific case (MCU elements that have already appeared on Spider-Man). But none of us knows the specifics.

^^^
All the non-direct Spiderman MCU references could have been part of the agreement that is no more. Yes, the two films that exist are Sony's and they're free to re-edit/re-release and sell them to outlets like HBO; on Blu-Rays, etc.

It does not mean that (going forward) they can continue to mention/use/integrate MCU characters they no longer have a license for, or have a agreement with Disney/Marvel Studios to use. They can continue to use all the Spiderman characters/villians that are part of his direct 'pantheon' - but they can't directly mention Iron Man/Tony Stark, Happy Hogan, or the other MCU developed properties going forward into their next SONY Spiderman film.<--- And I can guarantee if they did without any such agreement in place Disney WOULD take them to court and demand damages.

 

[Rahul]

^^^
All the non-direct Spiderman MCU references could have been part of the agreement that is no more. Yes, the two films that exist are Sony's and they're free to re-edit/re-release and sell them to outlets like HBO; on Blu-Rays, etc.

It does not mean that (going forward) they can continue to mention/use/integrate MCU characters they no longer have a license for, or have a agreement with Disney/Marvel Studios to use. They can continue to use all the Spiderman characters/villians that are part of his direct 'pantheon'

That is absolutely correct!

- but they can't directly mention Iron Man/Tony Stark, Happy Hogan, or the other MCU developed properties going forward into their next SONY Spiderman film.<--- And I can guarantee if they did without any such agreement in place Disney WOULD take them to court and demand damages.

That's the part neither of us really knows.

Of course they can't introduce any further elements of the MCU. But both Tony stark, happy Hogan as well as the Avengers have been integral elements of the last two Spider-Man movies - Sony movies. As such - it's entirely possible that references to them are absolutely allowed! They are part of Sony's movie universe already.

While you're absolute right that of course they can't hire any of the MCU actors or use IP, like the Avengers logo, verbal references to previous movies - like name-dropping events and characters from the previous movies - could generally be allowed. But we simply don't know.

Because this is so rare - two companies lending and swapping characters between movies - there is no real legal precedence for the details. That means almost certainly there is a written contract between MARVEL and Sony where exactly all of that - up to the details of name-dropping, showing flashbacks, using designs - is exactly spelled out in trend of what is allowed and what not.

But noone except marvel and Sony know the details of this contract, and they sure as hell ain't going to make that public. That means for us - we will only see weather or not Sony is allowed to namedrop Tony Stark once the next Spider-Man movie his theaters. Until then - everything is speculation.

 

[Noname Given]

That is absolutely correct!

That's the part neither of us really knows.

Of course they can't introduce any further elements of the MCU. But both Tony stark, happy Hogan as well as the Avengers have been integral elements of the last two Spider-Man movies - Sony movies. As such - it's entirely possible that references to them are absolutely allowed! They are part of Sony's movie universe already.

While you're absolute right that of course they can't hire any of the MCU actors or use IP, like the Avengers logo, verbal references to previous movies - like name-dropping events and characters from the previous movies - could generally be allowed. But we simply don't know.

Because this is so rare - two companies lending and swapping characters between movies - there is no real legal precedence for the details. That means almost certainly there is a written contract between MARVEL and Sony where exactly all of that - up to the details of name-dropping, showing flashbacks, using designs - is exactly spelled out in trend of what is allowed and what not.

But noone except marvel and Sony know the details of this contract, and they sure as hell ain't going to make that public. That means for us - we will only see weather or not Sony is allowed to namedrop Tony Stark once the next Spider-Man movie his theaters. Until then - everything is speculation.

What are you talking about?

ANY agreement is LAID OUT in a written contract with clauses specifying what is allowed, which side is responsible for, and which side gets what monies. Given there is NO FURTHER AGREEMENT - I'd say Sony has whatever was considered part of the "Spiderman Pantheon" (my term, who knows how it's described in the actual contract) under whatever film licencing agreement they had in place prior to the (now defunct and no longer in place) SONY/MCU 'sharing agreement.

SONY has "Spiderman" pursuant to whatever their previous licensing contract (still in force because if it wasn't, Disney would HAVE the character to use as they please.)

It's clear Disney was banking on/ and hoping they could continue and hammer out another 'sharing' agreement, but since they didn't, you can be sure they will hold Sony to whatever the original agreement Sony had with Marvel to use the "Spiderman Pantheon" and if Sony violates anything Disney/Marvel WOULD pounce to reclaim the character.

 

[Kor]

IMO, Spidey works better on his own instead of as a sidekick in the MCU.

Kor

 

[DigificWriter]

I do not believe that Disney can legally prohibit Sony from retaining the majority of the cast of Homecoming and Far From Home, and if they can't do that, I don't think they can legally prohibit Sony from building off of Homecoming and Far From Home directly, which means that any future Spider-Man films that Sony produces featuring Holland and Co. will remain implicitly linked to the MCU.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

^^^
Get over yourself - I wasn't downplaying the FF in any manner in the 1960ies

Stop crying. I can quote every instance you did, but you would still deny it.

Sorry that I have A different opinion of the FF's relevance to MARVEL up through the 1980ies; and believe they maintained their relevence past the 1960ies.

Sorry you don't understand that by the late 70s, the FF as a concept was not succeeding, particularly with Marvel facing bankruptcy and had to be saved from the edge by a film adaptation--two unavoidable elephants in the room.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Yes, those movies would definitely be > 1bio. But probably not >2 bio., much less 2.7 bio. (or ">>1 bio." as I wrote, as in "much" higher). Because, yes, the entire MCU is bigger than Spider-Man. But Spider-Man is bigger than any single franchise within the MCU, even Iron Man.

Iron Man 3 made more money than any Spider-Man movie - but Iron Man specifically works because of the combination of the role and the actor: Robert Downey Jr. Spider-Man is in a similar ballpark pretty much with every actor close enough. Really: Spider-Man is the biggest single comicbook character of all time, even bigger than Superman and Batman, by pretty much any metric. So yeah - the MCU would be an absolute juggernaut with or without Spidey - but the truth is, it's not just MARVEL giving away box office to Sony - no, Spidey is a significant boost to the entirety of the MCU, more than the addition of the X-Men or Fantastic Four would be each. And more than the current helm of Disney seems to aknowledge.

Would Infinity War drop below 2 million without him? Sure, maybe. IW only made like 50k over 2b anyway. Not a chance in hell that Endgame would fall below 2b without him. Spider-man is not what makes these movies unique or popular. And while he definitely puts some butts in seats, most of those butts were going to be there anyway. There is a limit to how much higher you can take these movies just by inserting yet another popular character into a movie that already has a dozen+ because there's a ton of overlap between the fans of all these different characters. Spidey's impact on the Avengers movies is not zero, but it's nothing close to the MCU's impact on the Spider-man movies.

 

[Mudd]

I guess Spider-Man will have to revert to a normal spandex suit for a Sony SM3. The Iron Man tech likely has to go.

God, I hope so.

He wore his more basic outfit for most of Far From Home anyway. It's better.

Hell, he managed fine with his homemade togs for a lot of Homecoming.

 

[Mudd]

Eh? What MCU stuff? The old school Human Torch? Howard? The Tesseract? Cap waking up in the present? How was the film poorer for any of that?

Yeah, the fucking Tesseract, which was nothing but a MacGuffin to tie into other movies. And I loathed the fact that they chose to rush the character into the present day at the end so that he could be part of the goddamned Avengers, instead of letting him go on to do his thing during WWII. Time that was spent on that nonsense, which in no way improved the film, took away from what was otherwise a really lovely period piece.

 

[Noname Given]

Stop crying. I can quote every instance you did, but you would still deny it.

Oh please - go ahead.

Sorry you don't understand that by the late 70s, the FF as a concept was not succeeding, particularly with Marvel facing bankruptcy and had to be saved from the edge by a film adaptation--two unavoidable elephants in the room.

Again, oh please MARVEL facing bankruptcy wasn't due to the fact the "FF as a concept was not succeeding" as you put it - hell, both Siperman (for a TV series) and the Fantastic Four (for a animated series with a Robot as a stand in for the Human Torch because they'd licensed film right for the character separately); were a couple of bright spots helping to keep them afloat.