Spider-Man no longer in the MCU.

[majob]

4 hours ago, cris3f said:

I just think this is laughable. Sony who likes to be greedy and treats (almost) everyone like shit was given the same treatment from someone bigger than them. Fantastic, should happen more often, perhaps they'll learn a thing or two. ?

 

Sony Pictures is one of the worst run Sony divisions. Has been hemorrhaging money like crazy for years, so it's them who need the deal, surely not Disney who has plenty of options.

 

Tough luck... 

 

 

On the contrary, Sony actually holds all the cards right now. As Elvick_ said, Disney has currently bled billions with recent acquisitions and the falling revenues from their studio companies like ESPN. They're sitting on about $80 billion of debt  and the MCU is the biggest positive cash flow they have coming in right now and Sony has practically just turned off the spigot. Spider-Man has been given a large future role in phase 4 of the MCU and now that development is in jeopardy. Can Disney carry on? Most certainly, but why lose one the biggest draws to the MCU right now?

Edited August 22, 2019 by majob

[AJ_-_808]

45 minutes ago, majob said:

Spider-Man has been given a large future role in phase 4 of the MCU and now that development is in jeopardy. Can Disney carry on? Most certainly, but why lose one the biggest draws to the MCU right now?

 

This right here. If this is true, Disney is foolish.  The timing is dumb, considering the original avengers are done.

 

Unless Disney has an ace up their sleeve with x-men & fantastic four. They may also want Sony to go back to running spiderman, because if Sony drops the ball and Disney reacquires spiderman, then they've brought everyone back home, so to speak

[Ptirle]

Who cares, my head canon Spidey is from the animated series and from the latest game.

[Elvick_]

9 hours ago, danceswithsloths said:

Nobody is pretending. The ASM movies blew. I didnt mind Garfield, it was everything else that sucked, like the story. and the enemies. Their version of Hobgoblin was the absolute dumbest enemy ever. You can remain in denial all you want but they are the worst reviewed and worst selling live action Spider Man movies ever made, and that says more about the quality of the movies than you ever can. 

 

And of course there are more bad MCU films than Spidey films, cuz there's waaay more MCU movies in general. There's also more good MCU movies than good Spidey movies for the same reason. Out of 5 live Sony Spider Man movies, 3 of them sucked. That's a 60% rate. The percentage of bad MCU movies is much lower than 60% for sure.

 

Thats like comparing a group of 50 random people to a group of 7 random people, then saying "there's more assholes in the group of 50 people than there is in the group of 7". Obviously there is, considering the much larger amount of them.

lol Reviews don't mean as much as you think they do. And even if they did (they don't),then according to your standard of bowing down to reviewers; Spider-Man 3 is fresh, thus it is a good movie, and The Amazing Spider-Man is certified fresh so is a great movie. And both films grossed over $700m. So being the "worst selling" live action Spider-Man is to be a successful film. So that's not really a bad thing as you imply it is. And Spider-Man 3 when adjusting for inflation is a billion dollar film (the entire Raimi trilogy is), so by that metric it's an amazing movie too and if you talk shit on it you're just ignorant and the fresh reviews and box office says more about the high quality of the film than you ever can~

What a shitty argument. TAS doesn't suck. And I don't base that on the fact it is certified fresh either. Many people think the MCU Spider-Man films suck, because Spider-Man is sidelined as Iron Man Jr. I don't necessarily agree with that, but they exist. So if we're going to cherry pick which narrative we want for our arguments like children, then I pick that. And thus the MCU has made zero good Spider-Man films. Wow. Batting 0%. 60% by your made up standard is looking pretty good about now.

12 hours ago, TheLakota said:

Don't forget Blade, damnit. The entire industry owes fealty to New Line for saving their collective asses. I contend that without Blade and the original X-Men/Spiderman, we wouldn't have Marvel films today.

I love Blade, didn't know who made it though.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Elvick_

[Elvick_]

11 hours ago, AJ_-_808 said:

 

No one is arguing against that, but you cant fairly say Disney is owned nothing.  Sony/Fox etc didnt buy the characters, they bought the rights to use them. Those rights revert to the owner (disney) if a movie isnt made every X years.

 

You can't say spiderman, and by extension venom,isnt enjoying more popularity after joining the MCU.  Surely that should be worth something.  If we dont know how much their asking for, we shouldn't be bringing out the pitchforks just yet

Venom isn't part of the MCU at all. There's just a trend of superheroes being popular. Aquaman grossed over a billion for DC, I don't think that had much to do with being "part of the MCU" (since it isn't...) and that film had everything going against it since it's the DCEU.

Disney was already getting 100% of merch, 5% off the top of the box office, Sony funded 100% of the film, marketing and distribution. Sony got nothing from Avengers with Spidey in it. Disney got to use the film verson of Spidey in the theme parks (and Spider-Man is the bulk of the focus of what's being built currently) and Sony get none of that either.

Disney wasn't getting nothing. Stop acting like Disney was being ripped off. They weren't. And they came at Sony to own not just 50% of Spiderman and have some control over it, but every single thing Sony does with the franchise. Including Venom 2, Spider-Verse 2, Morphius, etc. We shouldn't call Disney out for being greedy for that? Get a grip dude. All they offered to Sony in exchanged was to pay for half of the MCU Spider-Man films. That's it. Not budging on merch, nothing from the parks to Sony, no benefit to Sony at all.

Sony gets more money from doing their own movies. $700m on their own is more than 50% with Marvel. And they don't have to give up control of the biggest franchise in Sony Pictures to the monolithic and overly powerful Disney Corporation. Disney has too much shit. You may be really happy about Fox being owned by Disney, but it's really screwed the industry. But hey, at least X-Men can be shoved in the MCU's already overclogged mess.

[AJ_-_808]

14 minutes ago, Elvick_ said:

Venom isn't part of the MCU at all. There's just a trend of superheroes being popular. Aquaman grossed over a billion for DC, I don't think that had much to do with being "part of the MCU" (since it isn't...) and that film had everything going against it since it's the DCEU.

Disney was already getting 100% of merch, 5% off the top of the box office, Sony funded 100% of the film, marketing and distribution. Sony got nothing from Avengers with Spidey in it. Disney got to use the film verson of Spidey in the theme parks (and Spider-Man is the bulk of the focus of what's being built currently) and Sony get none of that either.

Disney wasn't getting nothing. Stop acting like Disney was being ripped off. They weren't. And they came at Sony to own not just 50% of Spiderman and have some control over it, but every single thing Sony does with the franchise. Including Venom 2, Spider-Verse 2, Morphius, etc. We shouldn't call Disney out for being greedy for that? Get a grip dude. All they offered to Sony in exchanged was to pay for half of the MCU Spider-Man films. That's it. Not budging on merch, nothing from the parks to Sony, no benefit to Sony at all.

Sony gets more money from doing their own movies. $700m on their own is more than 50% with Marvel. And they don't have to give up control of the biggest franchise in Sony Pictures to the monolithic and overly powerful Disney Corporation. Disney has too much shit. You may be really happy about Fox being owned by Disney, but it's really screwed the industry. But hey, at least X-Men can be shoved in the MCU's already overclogged mess.

 

You "get a grip dude", your bias is showing.  You cherry pick 'other' movies that did well, but ignore the ones that didnt. 

 

You have a source for your claim that Sony got nothing from civil war & end game? If not, then you have no idea what their deals entail.

 

Why shouldn't Disney seek some compensation/creative control over their (marvel's) creation at a point where spiderman and potentially other characters related to him can be affected by crossovers and the mcu?.  At the end of the day, spider man, and venom, are still owned by marvel, not Sony. Sony only has the movie rights.  - which is probably also why there's no merch %  -  they signed off on the deal in the first place.  Plus you act like none of those points are negotiable.

 

Whatever, it's like talking to a wall, so I'm done. Have fun

 

 

[Elvick_]

44 minutes ago, AJ_-_808 said:

You "get a grip dude", your bias is showing.  You cherry pick 'other' movies that did well, but ignore the ones that didnt. 

 

You have a source for your claim that Sony got nothing from civil war & end game? If not, then you have no idea what their deals entail.

 

Why shouldn't Disney seek some compensation/creative control over their (marvel's) creation at a point where spiderman and potentially other characters related to him can be affected by crossovers and the mcu?.  At the end of the day, spider man, and venom, are still owned by marvel, not Sony. Sony only has the movie rights.  - which is probably also why there's no merch %  -  they signed off on the deal in the first place.  Plus you act like none of those points are negotiable.

 

Whatever, it's like talking to a wall, so I'm done. Have fun

I gave examples to illustrate my point. I don't have to cite every film ever made to avoid "cherry picking". Unless you're tacitly admitting you cherry picked as well, then fine by me. But you aren't, so get outta here.

 

I don't care what you want to believe. The information is out there fella, don't know what to tell ya. You clearly don't want to find more info on the deal you just want to treat Disney as some innocent victim of evil ol' Sony. :'( How will Disney survive? :'( First Fox bullies them into buying them, now Sony is exercising their rights to the things they own. Nobody suffers like the billion dollar corporation Disney. Donate to my charity, "Disney Disasters" it helps Disney in these trying times.

Disney already had creative control over Spider-Man in the MCU and was already getting "some" compensation which I detailed that you chose to ignore entirely. they did the creative and Sony paid the bills of the stand alone films. At the end of the day, the film rights at with Sony. And you are dense if you think merch BASED ON FILMS has nothing to do with the COMPANY WHO MADE THE FILM. There's a reason film iterations are treated as separate entities in the entertainment industry.

Talking to me is like talking to a wall when all my comments have more effort put into them than yours? lolk. You must have some talkative walls with something to say then. I hope you sleep with sound cancelling headphones on to drown out the noise.

[Sicho]

I know that I won't watch a new non-MCU Spider-Man movie. I'm not really into Spider-Man as a character, I find him boring and the MCU connection is what made him and the movies interesting for me. Didn't watch the Pre-MCU Spider-Man movies either except the very first Raimi one.

But even though I'm not a fan of Spider-Man, I really enjoyed the recent videogame.

[danceswithsloths]

5 hours ago, Elvick_ said:

lol Reviews don't mean as much as you think they do. And even if they did (they don't),then according to your standard of bowing down to reviewers; Spider-Man 3 is fresh, thus it is a good movie, and The Amazing Spider-Man is certified fresh so is a great movie. And both films grossed over $700m. So being the "worst selling" live action Spider-Man is to be a successful film. So that's not really a bad thing as you imply it is. And Spider-Man 3 when adjusting for inflation is a billion dollar film (the entire Raimi trilogy is), so by that metric it's an amazing movie too and if you talk shit on it you're just ignorant and the fresh reviews and box office says more about the high quality of the film than you ever can~

What a shitty argument. TAS doesn't suck. And I don't base that on the fact it is certified fresh either. Many people think the MCU Spider-Man films suck, because Spider-Man is sidelined as Iron Man Jr. I don't necessarily agree with that, but they exist. So if we're going to cherry pick which narrative we want for our arguments like children, then I pick that. And thus the MCU has made zero good Spider-Man films. Wow. Batting 0%. 60% by your made up standard is looking pretty good about now.

lmao like I said you can remain in denial all you want.

 

Nobody went to see them, and not many enjoyed what they did see, and it sure wasn't because they were great movies like you seem to think lmfao. They didn't even make their own budget back in domestic gross on TASM 2, instead relying on international sales to even manage to make money on that movie. If a movie fails domestically and they have to hope and pray that it does well enough internationally to save their asses, that's not a "successful" film. That's barely scraping by.

 

Spider man 3 has mediocre reviews at best, so i'm not sure what you're even talking about. Metacritic has it listed at a 59 critic score and a 6.7 user score. Rotten tomatoes lands it at 63% critic and only 51% audience. Which lands it right down in the same place where it belongs, with TASM 1 & 2. It did really well in box offices due to how good the first two movies were, and the fact that it was one of the only superhero franchises running at that time.

 

The MCU spidey movies are much better than TASM movies, which is why people actually want to go see them. Weird how that works.

Edited August 22, 2019 by danceswithsloths

[DaivRules]

Pointing to how much a studio says a movie made is the worst possible measure of how successful it is, and reviews are second to even that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

 

I can tell you that Spider-Man is VERY popular with ALL the younger kids right now. In my kids school, the merch is everywhere. Sony will be able to carry that success forward, with or without Disney, on the momentum they've built. Sony's aim to appeal to a new generation, even at the alienation of existing fans is a long-term play that is working. What will be interesting is Disney knows the merch angle and plays necessary and it doesn't seem like Sony's previous experience does them much good here. Hopefully they've picked up a thing or two along the way and step their merch game as well as identify what brought the younger crowd into this new Spider-Man and continue whatever that was.

[Eraezr]

On 8/21/2019 at 10:22 PM, danceswithsloths said:

Well shit. Now we're gonna be back to getting shitty solo Spidey films like "The Amazing Spider Man 2". Movie was so bad that it didn't even make it's budget back in domestic sales, and Sony wants to go back to that? wow.

 

I liked The Amazing Spider-Man 2 despite its studio interferences. Would be neat if we could see the director's cut.

[TheLakota]

4 hours ago, AJ_-_808 said:

You have a source for your claim that Sony got nothing from civil war & end game?

 

I do, and if you'd bothered to use Google one of the very first returns would have answered your question.

 

Sony received no compensation for allowing Spider-Man to appear in Civil War or the Avengers films.

 

You, my guy, are exhausting. 

[DEI2EK]

14 hours ago, cris3f said:

I just think this is laughable. Sony who likes to be greedy and treats (almost) everyone like shit was given the same treatment from someone bigger than them. Fantastic, should happen more often, perhaps they'll learn a thing or two. ?

 

Sony Pictures is one of the worst run Sony divisions. Has been hemorrhaging money like crazy for years, so it's them who need the deal, surely not Disney who has plenty of options.

 

Tough luck... 

 

 

but sony pictures has had great hits lately such as

 

Paul Blart Mall Cop 2

Pixels

Holmes and Watson

 

[AJ_-_808]

4 hours ago, TheLakota said:

 

I do, and if you'd bothered to use Google one of the very first returns would have answered your question.

 

Sony received no compensation for allowing Spider-Man to appear in Civil War or the Avengers films.

 

You, my guy, are exhausting. 

 

I'm only going to address this point because Elvick is still going on about the big bad corporate mouse.

 

Ok, thank you for that link, however the very next line says disney/marvel gets nothing from the Sony films in that deal either, which someone claimed was 5%.

 

So original deal is Disney uses spiderman in 3(?) massively hyped films with a lot of momentum. Sony doesnt get paid but has no cost and gets a ton of much needed exposure to help their yet again reboot to a debatable floundering reboot (TASM 1+2). At the same time, marvel doesnt take a cut from, but also has no cost in the Sony spiderman movies.

 

New deal would be a 50/50 split to cost & profit, with potential for continued exposure from Disney mcu (which will no doubt be debuting xmen & f4 at some point), which could only further benefit Sony spiderman.  Going from a degree of separation to more collaboration - yeah, what a horrible offer

 

Honestly, Sony should try to negotiate for merch sales & a percentage from spidey in dcu and let it fly.  They're gambling that they can maintain the momentum on their own, which (again debatable) they've failed to do twice.  If they can, good for them. If they can't, then what - a 4th reboot?

4 hours ago, TheLakota said:

 

You, my guy, are exhausting. 

 

Also, that's unnecessary.  You cant make a point without being insulting

Edited August 22, 2019 by AJ_-_808

[TheLakota]

27 minutes ago, AJ_-_808 said:

Also, that's unnecessary.  You cant make a point without being insulting

 

It's unfortunate you took offense, but I can't hold a reasonable discussion with unreasonable/deliberately obtuse people.

 

I believe you're being deliberately obtuse, because I refuse to believe you're so unintelligent that you're incapable of utilizing the Internet to find answers to your questions.

 

If you find "exhausting" an insulting comment then you'd be better served in flagging me, but let's not pretend you're not being very difficult to talk to in this thread. 

[thepeaguy83]

As someone who doesn't really follow the Marvel films much, this news doesn't bother me. 

[Elvick_]

9 hours ago, danceswithsloths said:

lmao like I said you can remain in denial all you want.

Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man are good to great films by your own standards. Insinuating otherwise is to admit your argument is terrible and incorrect, which just proves my point.  Either they're good movies, or reviews ain't shit and my argument is correct and yours is not. Your choice~ 

 

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3

 

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_amazing_spider_man

 

Quote

Nobody went to see them, and not many enjoyed what they did see, and it sure wasn't because they were great movies like you seem to think lmfao.

$700m is not "nobody went to see them". Time to put the exaggerations and bullshit away. Spider-Man Far From Home's foreign box office was double the domestic. Many films rely on foreign markets... money is money. China is a massive growing market that companies are FOCUSING on to make more money.

 

The problem with TAS series was bad management of money. They had bloated budgets. Which is a company problem, not a problem with Spider-Man himself. Spider-Man didn't reduce the profits of those films. Sony did with bad management. And now they've financed two cheaper Spider-Man films so should be able to keep costs down going forward. Though MCU CGI on the suit has never touched TAS series.

And, I didn't say they were great. You did by acting like reviews matter. I say TAS is good and Spider-Man 3 is shit. Though I'd still rather watch Spidey 3 than Thor 2 or Iron Man 3. The worst Spider-Man films are still more entertaining than the worst MCU films since the character of Spider-Man is so interesting to me. But that's purely subjective... hell I'd rather watch than than Thor 1. That film is booooring with the worst romance plot in the entire MCU. I would say all superhero films, but the Daredevil movie is a thing.

But I'm done talking to you. Go make false arguments to somebody else.

[Dr_Mayus]

3 hours ago, Elvick_ said:

The worst Spider-Man films are still more entertaining than the worst MCU films since the character of Spider-Man is so interesting to me.

Well...I don't know about that

 

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Dr_Mayus

[danceswithsloths]

1 hour ago, Elvick_ said:

Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man are good to great films by your own standards. Insinuating otherwise is to admit your argument is terrible and incorrect, which just proves my point.  Either they're good movies, or reviews ain't shit and my argument is correct and yours is not. Your choice~ 

 

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3

 

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_amazing_spider_man

 

$700m is not "nobody went to see them". Time to put the exaggerations and bullshit away. Spider-Man Far From Home's foreign box office was double the domestic. Many films rely on foreign markets... money is money. China is a massive growing market that companies are FOCUSING on to make more money.

 

The problem with TAS series was bad management of money. They had bloated budgets. Which is a company problem, not a problem with Spider-Man himself. Spider-Man didn't reduce the profits of those films. Sony did with bad management. And now they've financed two cheaper Spider-Man films so should be able to keep costs down going forward. Though MCU CGI on the suit has never touched TAS series.

And, I didn't say they were great. You did by acting like reviews matter. I say TAS is good and Spider-Man 3 is shit. Though I'd still rather watch Spidey 3 than Thor 2 or Iron Man 3. The worst Spider-Man films are still more entertaining than the worst MCU films since the character of Spider-Man is so interesting to me. But that's purely subjective... hell I'd rather watch than than Thor 1. That film is booooring with the worst romance plot in the entire MCU. I would say all superhero films, but the Daredevil movie is a thing.

But I'm done talking to you. Go make false arguments to somebody else.

lmao I like how you completely ignored the fact that those movies have completely mediocre reviews. Spider-man 3 even has pretty poor reviews. If you think 63% from critics and a terrible 51% from audiences is the kind of reviews that "good to great" movies get then I truly feel sorry for you.

 

These are the kinds of reviews that good to great movies get:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spider_man_far_from_home

 

The problem with TAS was shitty writing and character design. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by danceswithsloths

[AJ_-_808]

11 hours ago, TheLakota said:

 

It's unfortunate you took offense, but I can't hold a reasonable discussion with unreasonable/deliberately obtuse people.

 

I believe you're being deliberately obtuse, because I refuse to believe you're so unintelligent that you're incapable of utilizing the Internet to find answers to your questions.

 

If you find "exhausting" an insulting comment then you'd be better served in flagging me, but let's not pretend you're not being very difficult to talk to in this thread. 

 

Actually, my bad, that quote had a typo.  Cant should be been can - no matter.

 

You're right, I didnt bother to Google it, because it wasnt really relevant to the point I was making - more of an idle question  because 2 sets of people were making opposing statements. Chalk that up to laziness/not really caring that much on my part.  Plus my lunch break was ending at the time I wrote that.

 

I'm just going to bow out by saying I hope both companies can work it out because there's a ton of potential in an ongoing partnership for both sides, but if it falls apart, and we get spidey reboot number 4, only the fans will lose.

Edited August 23, 2019 by AJ_-_808

[LordWikii]

While nothing has been announced yet, apparently Tom Holland has been teasing on Instagram with Robert Downey Jr. that maybe he gets to stay on MCU after all.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B1fUPgblShf/?utm_source=ig_embed

 

Spider-Man features on Marvel's D23 2019 Banner.

 

And the latest rumor on the internet is that Sony and Disney/Marvel made a new deal:

- A 6-picture deal with Tom Holland, with an option for a 7th.

- There are three more Spider-Man films after Spider-Man 3, which will be a new trilogy.

- The second trilogy will focus on Peter Parker's college years including plans for Peter to meet up and team up with Firestar and Ice Man of the X-Men (based in part on the old Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends cartoon).

- The other three movies are two Avengers films in which Spider-Man will have a larger role and become friends with Johnny Storm (Human Torch from the Fantastic Four).

- Marvel Studios will helm and co-finance all Spider-Man related movies for 30% of the full profits (Disney previously wanted 50%, but Sony said no, which led to the talks falling apart).

- Sony would distribute, but Disney will acquire exclusive digital and online rights for Disney Plus and affiliated TV networks.

- Marvel Studios will helm and co-finance SpiderVerse live-action spinoffs under the same terms.  

- Venom will relocate into the MCU.

- Sony will be given permission for TV live-action programs based on SpiderVerse properties (Sony only has film rights to Spider-Man, but needs permission from Disney for TV rights)

- Disney wants the deal to be done before Saturday's Marvel panel at D23 Expo.

 - Spider-Man is also said to be a part of a D23 Expo panel.

 

https://cosmicbook.news/spider-man-deal-7-movies-avengers

Edited August 23, 2019 by wickenex

[yellowwindow7]

On 21‏/8‏/2019 at 3:05 PM, HailHale81 said:

I hope this doesn't affect Sony being able to make the next couple of Spiderman games. No idea what kind of deal they signed. I can understand Disney wanting a bigger cut but 50/50 is too much. They already earn all the money from merchandising and I'm sure that worth way more than what they would make from the movie. Hopefully something will still be worked out.

 

I don't think it got anything to do with the video games, the break up deal is about the movies.

[Dantes_994]

I'm really glad that the people on this forum aren't blindly following Disney like I have seen people do on youtube and instagram. 

[AlienSteam]

I just hope Sony and Marvel/Disney can come to some sort of agreement, as I'd love Spidey to continue in the MCU, I would like to see them focus a bit less on his relationship with Stark however. I've got a feeling they might still strike a deal based on what limited knowledge I have, or that could just be blind optimism on my part.

[Lillia]

Disney is really greedy, they want to own everything. I can't really blame Sony although I hated Sony's Spiderman movies. They sucked. 

And I really liked Spidey's relationship with Tony in MCU, seems like a waste to throw it away. 

 

But if that means we can get more dark themed Spiderman movies with Venom then maybe it's not so bad.