Spidey OUT of MCU

Nothing that Mr. Bock said in that quote is opinion.

 

He is an analyst, it is almost by definition his opinion, otherwise different analysts could not come to different conclusions on the same topic.He is analyzing Disney's behavior and offering his opinion on it.

 

"Disney caused this partnership to dissolve by trying to demand profits from an IP that they don't own, and then didn't counter when Sony said "no"."
-DigificWriter

Wrong.

 

Nope.

Nothing in that article refutes what I said.

 

You're wrong

 

I'm reading that article now, and the original deal was that Marvel can use Spider-Man in one movie and would loan Feige to produce two Spider-Man movies for Sony. So, basically, Sony already did Marvel the favor of extending the promised use of Spidey in one Marvel movies to three Marvel movies, with still only having Feige produce two Sony Spider-Men so far. Yeah, I certainly get that Sony is in no mood to budge here. Disney does not seem to be a good-faith partner.

 

No.

Nothing about what you posted in any way invalidates my assertion that Disney did not make a counteroffer after Sony rejected their original "we want 50% of the profits" proposal (I may have focused on the simplest summation of that proposal, but I have never denied that Disney's proposal also included them sharing 50% of the costs of production on Sony's Spider-Man/Spider-Verse films going forward, and so my assertion therefore remains valid).

 

No, it does not remain valid. In all of your rambling, not once did you mention anything about Disney's offer of covering 50% of production costs or producing the spinoffs. You are wrong

 

This argument is BS.

My choice to distill this issue down to its simplest form doesn't make my comments wrong any more than saying "the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery" would.

The full scope of both the breakdown of the Sony/Disney licensing partnership and the reasons behind the Civil War is of course much more complicated, but that doesn't make such a simple distillation wrong.

 

I keep hearing about how the characters need to be "separate" and I just don't get it.

 

Simplist form? Is that what we call leaving out all the pertinent facts? LMAO! Ok Trumpkins.

 

Sony needs to call Tobey Maguire, then call Saul Rami and send a fruit basket.

or just focus on more Spider Verse animated films. the first one was excellent. Anyway, I like the MCU but the Rami spiderman films will always kind of be definitive for me. Maquire is the Christopher Reeves of Peter Parker Spiderman. You can replace the actor but it will never be just right. The Miles Morales spiderman is way more interesting to me than the Tony-Starkified MCU one.

Bring on Spider Gwen.

 

^^some of it might be due to nostalgia, but given actor in tandem with the material, even Reeve made less sucky III and IV. That's not an easy task. Tobey was Spider-Man for me as well. Lynda Carter is THE Wonder Woman. That doesn't mean other incarnations or reboots/reimaginings are bad just because (the fact most of them plop is due to uneven scripting that lack any real mission or gusto), they just don't exceed the charm of the originals and it is possible for a remake or sequel (albeit rare) to overtake the original. TNG did it. Battlestar Galactica won me over in its first full season (though its miniseries was atrocious). 2009 V's season 2, despite a few hideous script choices, almost got things right by the finale - with promise of a third season that I dare say would have worked as they were closing out all the inconsistencies and idiocies seasons 1-2 diddled around with as well as absconding that cheesy soap opera format. It is a genuine shame. And a shame they killed off Jane Badler's character, who helped elevate a lot of truly suckage scripts - and she wasn't even a villain!! Seasons 1-2 had some potential but so much was just off. Had they had the big takeover earlier in the season and not with a boatload of rough drafts for actors to belt out, what might have been... but I digress.

And, yes, Gal Gadot is wonderful as Wonder Woman (but the changing the premise of WW still bugs me, there's still not a real need to change the world War involved since if WW2 was lacking all Princess Diana or the Queen would need to say is how they are aware of humans and how they thought the first would be "the war to end all wars" and not alter the franchise's origin because it's not that difficult to tie that in while still saying "men are evil, blah blah blah". But I digress again.

I didn't know Spidey was in the MCU, I thought they were standalone movies with Tobey until that last reboot - where I thought "seems a bit soon?" But the MCU has Hulk jumping laughably high distances with CGI nowadays, to the point he may as well have been given the power to fly, so what difference does it make.



Lou Ferrigno sold Hulk better than any CGI had. But the movies had their own charm, and plenty of audiences will scoff at the early-80s low-budget TV show as well.

 

changing to WW1 was brilliant. It would have been so easy for ehr to say "I need to kill hitler with my sword" but by using WW1, where maybe no single person of prominence can be easily blamed, it played into the themes of the film and the lesson she needed to learn. Also WW1 isn't shown in as many prominent movies these days.. and the film allows a glimpse into how horrible that war was.. from the trench warfare to all the gasses being used. It is one of the few movies i saw in theaters when I forgot I was in a theater and just got enraptured in the film.. especially as they entered the trenches

 

I thought the Andrew Garfield movies were too soon. By Tom Holland I had lost interest. Spider Man: Into the Spider Verse was got me interested again. It really is that good.

I like Gadot's wonder woman. The Great War treatment did not bother me at all, as it helped to show how she reacts to many different eras, and, as FSM mentions, WWI doesn't have an obvious instigator. That, for me was a problem with Captain America: The First Avenger: they're trying to make Red Skull a bigger bad guy than Hitler. Doesn't work. Maybe it works on a younger generation that is a few generations removed.

Anyway, i'm actually glad Sony's got spiderman back. I hope they run with it.

 

Except the movies that Sony did Marvel the "favor" of loaning Spider-Man to would have been huge hits whether Spider-Man were in them or not. There was no guarantee Sony's next Spider-Man offerings would be as accepted as they have been without the MCU connection. Also, one of the above linked articles indicates that Marvel was willing to take a hand in Sony's currently non MCU projects such as Venom and Morbius, thus bringing them into the MCU and thus increasing their marketability. Not blaming either side here, just stating that I don't really think there's a "villain" in this situation. Everyone is always so quick to look for a bad guy in these situations, especially when Disney is involved.

 

But they had to make them that soon as they may have lost the rights. I liked the Garfield films apart from the look of Spider-Man's costume in the first one.
In related news it seems that Stan Lee's daugghter is part of 'Team Sony':
https://www.superherohype.com/comic...er-man-side-in-dispute-with-disney-and-marvel

 

Yeah, but the question is marketability. As it were, Marvel profited a lot from having Spider-Man in the marketing, and Tom Holland was, of all the newer actors, the one that got sent around the talk show circuit the most. Not to mention that the crossovers is one of the main appeals of the MCU, and having Spider-Man in there certainly sold a lot more tickets.
Bottomline, Sony and Marvel both profited a lot from the deal that was set, and people "always (being) so quick to look for a bad guy", especially with Disney might have something to do with how Disney has been operating in the past decade.
Aside from buying not only several big IP (Marvel, Star Wars), they've underplayed the Marvel properties that Fox owned the film licences to to the point of actually cancelling the Fantastic Four comic book, until, surprise, they simply bought Fox, including that IP, so now it's time to promote those X-Men and FF again, they've staked out the most profitable launch dates for their big IP blockbusters years in advance, the writers of Civil War outright admitted that doing CW was dictated down to them in response to WB doing BvS, having Netflix launch their Marvel shows on the same Fridays as DC movies were released in theatres.
And let's not even talk about the special conditions they've bullied theatre owners to accept.

So what was the situation here? Under the previous deal, both Sony and Marvel profited from working together. Now, suddenly, Marvel wants to change the deal to their benefit. This is what it comes down to.

 

None of the articles have said definitively that Disney made no counteroffers. Not even Sony's pr said that when they were talking about Sony having made counteroffers. They all simply failed to mention what Disney did or didn't say or propose after Sony rejected Disney's offer. Almost all, that is, because I already linked a Hollywood Insider article which said Disney was willing to accept 30%, so there clearly was more conversation there than has been reported in most of the articles.

 

Sony profited more having Tony Stark and Nick Fury in their movies than Marvel profited by having Spider-Man in theirs. Adding MCU connections to Venom and Morbius and the rest of Sony's projects could only work in Sony's favor. And doesn't Disney have a point in that they would rather have Kevin Feige producing billion dollar movies for them rather than a competitor? Actors and athletes renegotiate contracts all the time. Are they acting in bad faith to their original contract or are they trying to get full value for their services compared to the profit their employers are making off of them? The cast of Friends only got their raise to a million dollars per episode when a WB exec went on record as saying that WB would make a billion dollars per episode once the show went into syndication and the cast realized their worth. Like I said, I'm not taking sides here at all. I'm as disappointed as anyone else. All things considered, Disney just might be entitled to a better deal* moving forward. Especially if, as reported, they were willing to help bring Sony's other properties into their wildly successful and profitable shared universe.

*I will admit that the rumored 50% of the profits is excessive, but that was just a starting point in the negotiations and Sony reportedly walked away without making a counter offer.