Spidey OUT of MCU

[JD]

it is Dinsey fault.. they are asking too much. That said, on a base level, they don't have the time.. more they should they feel the need.. to produce someone else's film .
the real issue is that they are wanting to not only get 50% of opening box office (which is ten time more than they agreed to in the first version of the deal) but they are also asking to co-finance the films. Most fans would be like "yay, Disney is going help Sony pay for the films and that way every one is happy" but what they miss is that if Sony allows Disney to finance the films than Disney would have partial control of the character.. and that is something that Sony doesn't want to give up under any circumstances. The real problem I gather now comes in the fact that in order to keep the rights to the character, Sony has to produce a film every five years. Disney might have wanted out, (and therefore made an offer that they knew would not be accepted) so they can continue to make MCU films without feeling the timecrunch that Sony has.. when it's not even their films

I think Disney made the offer knowing they wouldn't .. I think they don't want the pressure of making Sony's films (and then having those films make a billion, which Marvel gets a fraction of) so I think they wanted out. Plus, I'm Kevin FFeige's age..I run two errands an I'm tired as hell, he doesn't NEED to produce anymore films he has too much to do every day as it iis

You can stop repeating yourself, nobody is going to agree with you.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

A couple of things: Sony doesn't need MCU. They did need them, but even the least popular Spidey film (live action) made 700 million. they don't NEED a billion to turn a hefty profit. I would say they needed MCU for some fresh creativity etc.. writing. But to agree to Disney's offer would be ludicrous.

Feige is eVERYWHERE.. taking golf carts form set to set, looking over everything big and small

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

You can stop repeating yourself, nobody is going to agree with you.

so tell me where the logic is flawed here

 

[FPAlpha]

It generally didn't, however, have characters becoming apprentice and mentor to the other, with Spider-Man it was very much part of Stan Lee's intention that he be young and yet very much not a sidekick.



And yet for some reason Spider-Man remained a committed follower of him.

Part of Parker's backstory and core is his age (at least when the comics started or were rebooted with the Ultimate universe a while ago) but i don't see this being any different in the movies, practically even more so than the previous movies that used the high school life only in passing.

The only difference is the MCU approach by including Stark as a mentor because they are similar in character and tech savvy (although Tony only learned of Peter's intelligence when he investigated him and had their first face to face).

In the Ultimate universe Peter started to get involved with the Avengers near the end of his arc because they already incorporated a kind of Sokovia accord on their own (can't remember if this was done before or after the Civil War storyline in the main Marvel universe) and he started training with several Avengers in preparation for him becoming 18 and having to choose mandatory government service or stop being a Superhero altogether.

And why wouldn MCU Parker not follow Stark? Stark is a genius, it's Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak with the charisma of George Clooney all rolled into one and he reached out to Parker to help him (although he did attach some strings to it such as being involved in the MCU Civil War as another member on Tony's side). Since Peter doesn't have a role model (and thank you Marvel for not doing another origin story) Tony came at the perfect time and he learned quite a bit from him what it actually means to be a Superhero (and in turn taught Tony a thing or two).

I personally liked the Stark element in Far From Home.. Tony had a huge impact on Peter#s life and the events were only a few weeks ago in movie time so it was still fresh and believable that he was still coming to terms with Tony's death.

 

[Relayer1]

I personally liked the Stark element in Far From Home.. Tony had a huge impact on Peter#s life and the events were only a few weeks ago in movie time so it was still fresh and believable that he was still coming to terms with Tony's death.

Indeed.

For in universe logic, this could be why he pulls back from being an Avenger. Fury's manipulation of him too.

Solo Spidey wouldn't be a massive wtf ?

 

[Booji]

it is Dinsey fault.. they are asking too much.

If you're putting up 50 percent of the production costs and are the company actually making the film, you're damn straight you're entitled to 50% of the profits. It's basic economics.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Without Stark and Fury, Homecoming and Far From Home have to be rewritten from page one. Without Spidey, the audience would have just focused on some of the 250,000 other crowd-pleasing moments from A3&4. "Mr. Stark, I don't feel so good..." could easily have been switched to Bucky dusting in Cap's arms, with much the same fan reaction. Sony's on their third since the turn of the century; Marvel just had the highest grossing film of all time. Sony needs the MCU much more than the MCU needs Spider-Man.

As has been pointed out, even the least successful live-action Spider-Man movie, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 made $ 708.9 million worldwide. And Homecoming wasn't the most successful Spider-Man movie[url=https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=spiderman2017.htm] at the time, the[url=https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=spiderman3.htm] much maligned Spider-Man 3 was, even before adjusting for inflation. So, it's not like the participation of Marvel is automatically a plus for Sony, commercially. They just made a Venom movie that made almost as much as Homecoming worldwide, on a much smaller budget. And it's also not like they can't do a movie which fans and critics love without Marvel, either, as the animated Into The SpiderVerse proved. Neither company needs the other, and Sony, doing far better with the Spider-Man properties than just a few years ago, would be stupid to accept the conditions Disney wants.

If you're putting up 50 percent of the production costs and are the company actually making the film, you're damn straight you're entitled to 50% of the profits. It's basic economics.

But Sony does not want Marvel to co-finance. Sony had no problem financing the Spider-Man movies. And, of course, Disney wants to co-finance, if they get a relative chunk of the money, because they know it's pretty much risk-free, as there has never been a Spider-Man movie that lost money. So, the question is again, why should Sony agree to this?[/url][/url]

 

[Booji]

But Sony does not want Marvel to co-finance. Sony had no problem financing the Spider-Man movies. And, of course, Disney wants to co-finance, if they get a relative chunk of the money, because they know it's pretty much risk-free, as there has never been a Spider-Man movie that lost money. So, the question is again, why should Sony agree to this?

I believe Sony lost money on SM3 or maybe it was ASM2. It's mentioned in the article in this thread. Why should Sony agree? They, arguably, have made 5 shit live action Spidey films, lost all fan support after bombing two incarnations of the character, and need the MCU bad. They are in financial straits and will be bought out eventually. They can prop up their Spidey franchise and make even more by sticking with Marvel. Or, they can kill incarnation #3. Whatever though. Spidey will be back in Marvel's hands within 5 years or so and that's all I care about. Fuck Sony.

 

[DigificWriter]

This article is really well-written and should be read by everyone because it encapsulates everything that is wrong with this perception that Sony are the bad guys here and succinctly and accurately analyzes the truth about what happens next with Spider-Man and Sony:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/spider-man-divorce-ugly-side-disney-fandom-1233849

I believe Sony lost money on SM3 or maybe it was ASM2. It's mentioned in the article in this thread. Why should Sony agree? They, arguably, have made 5 shit live action Spidey films, lost all fan support after bombing two incarnations of the character, and need the MCU bad. They are in financial straits and will be bought out eventually. They can prop up their Spidey franchise and make even more by sticking with Marvel. Or, they can kill incarnation #3. Whatever though. Spidey will be back in Marvel's hands within 5 years or so and that's all I care about. Fuck Sony.

This entire post is exactly what the above-linked-to article pushes back against.

 

[Booji]

This article is really well-written and should be read by everyone because it encapsulates everything that is wrong with this perception that Sony are the bad guys here and succinctly and accurately analyzes the truth about what happens next with Spider-Man and Sony:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/spider-man-divorce-ugly-side-disney-fandom-1233849



This entire post is exactly what the above-linked-to article pushes back against.

Sony Spidey has been shit since the beginning. MCU Spidey was awesome. If the snowflakes don't like people sharing their opinion, tough.

 

[suarezguy]

And why wouldn MCU Parker not follow Stark?

That Iron Man contributed to a lot of the destructiveness that he and the Accords were now supposedly necessary to stop.
That Iron Man's now opponent, the supposedly also widely admired Captain America, recently discovered and revealed they had both been working with an organization controlled by fascists/neo-Nazis.
That Peter should care about preserving his secret identity and autonomy, not support revealing it to the government and international governments and be controlled by them and think that would be making the world a better place.
That the idea that Iron Man and the Accords regulations are looking out for the little guy, especially after the reveal about the previous regulator SHIELD, should seem very dubious as should that Tony threatened to reveal his identity to his aunt.
That post-Civil War every other member of the Avengers aside from War Machine had turned against and left Stark.

 

[Qonundrum]

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.

Great points, all, and - yeah - WW1 didn't have an obvious instigator as such and the more I think about that, the more it actually helps in some ways. I'm perhaps a bit too rigid with the WW2 origins...

 

[DigificWriter]

Sony Spidey has been shit since the beginning. MCU Spidey was awesome. If the snowflakes don't like people sharing their opinion, tough.

Acting like entitled babies isn't "sharing an opinion".

Also, there's no "Sony Spider-Man" and "MCU Spider-Man "; there's "pre-MCU Spider-Man" (which was a financially successful enterprise whether you liked it or not) and "MCU Spider-Man", which doesn't actually need Kevin Feige's direct involvement or Disney's money in order to remain successful going forward.

Disney can't force Sony to capitulate to their strong-arm tactics or legally stop them from continuing the story set up by Homecoming and Far From Home even if Feige isn't involved, and the Disney fanbois just need to get over themselves and accept that.

 

[Booji]

Acting like entitled babies isn't "sharing an opinion".

Also, there's no "Sony Spider-Man" and "MCU Spider-Man "; there's "pre-MCU Spider-Man" (which was a financially successful enterprise whether you liked it or not) and "MCU Spider-Man", which doesn't actually need Kevin Feige's direct involvement or Disney's money in order to remain successful going forward.

Disney can't force Sony to capitulate to their strong-arm tactics or legally stop them from continuing the story set up by Homecoming and Far From Home even if Feige isn't involved, and the Disney fanbois just need to get over themselves and accept that.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Disney is willing to front 50% of the bill and carry Sony on its back, and you call that strong arm tactics. Whatever floats your boat Trumpkins.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Blah blah blah blah blah. Disney is willing to front 50% of the bill and carry Sony on its back, and you call that strong arm tactics. Whatever floats your boat Trumpkins.

Again, Sony doesn't need or want help financing the Spider-Man movies. Disney isn't offering to co-finance, they are asking to. Because they know it will turn a profit. Sony is understandably not willing to hand $ 150 million+ in profits just to save $ 80 million production cost.

 

[DigificWriter]

Again, Sony doesn't need or want help financing the Spider-Man movies. Disney isn't offering to co-finance, they are asking to. Because they know it will turn a profit. Sony is understandably not willing to hand $ 150 million+ in profits just to save $ 80 million production cost.

Bingo.

 

[Booji]

Again, Sony doesn't need or want help financing the Spider-Man movies. Disney isn't offering to co-finance, they are asking to. Because they know it will turn a profit. Sony is understandably not willing to hand $ 150 million+ in profits just to save $ 80 million production cost.

And that's Sony's choice. If they want to produce an inferior product, which will make less money, good for them. Those are the kinds of choices that are inevitably getting them bought out. And again, I'll get my MCU Spidey back when that happens so whatevs.

 

[DigificWriter]

And that's Sony's choice. If they want to produce an inferior product, which will make less money, good for them. Those are the kinds of choices that are inevitably getting them bought out. And again, I'll get my MCU Spidey back when that happens so whatevs.

Whatever you say, dude.

For Sony, 100% of less than a billion dollars is obviously better than 50% of a billion dollars or more, particularly when MCU Spidey is not their only source of Spider-Man-related revenue.

 

[Relayer1]

I think the bottom line is that people just want all the Marvel characters under the same roof.

Sony are a smaller company with a patchy record with the IP. Disney a monster with a great track history. Truth be told, I actively don't like Disney - I find them objectionable and would rather they simply didn't exist. Sony as a company I simply couldn't give a stuff about. Jobs and people are a different thing.

I couldn't care less if Sony makes a deal with Disney or the rights revert when Sony is sold, or whatever scenario results in the MCU getting Spidey back. I'd just like the MCU to get Spidey back.

Blame Sony, blame Disney, whatever - who cares ? They're companies, they're motivated by profits and they don't give a damn about you. They don't deserve your loyalty.

 

[Booji]

Whatever you say, dude.

For Sony, 100% of less than a billion dollars is obviously better than 50% of a billion dollars or more, particularly when MCU Spidey is not their only source of Spider-Man-related revenue.

If they get bought out or merge with another company then 100% of nothing is nothing.