SPIDER-MAN 2 from Marvel & Sony (7/5/19) 4 4

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Part of the agreement was utilizing existing MCU characters to boost results. It does make sense.

Night Monkey would be an MCU character, though, like Karen and EDITH.

Edited August 21, 2019 by theCapraAegagrus

[Bosco685]

Just now, theCapraAegagrus said:

Night Monkey would be an MCU character, though. Like Karen.

Sorry, not laughing at you. I just recently learned what the term 'Karen' means to people outside the USA (see Urban Dictionary).

I think in this case because the character was created in a Sony film as part of its Spider-Man film rights, it could lead to a legal situation.

Spider-Man: Far From Home - What is a Night Monkey?

Quote

Earlier this year, Far From Home producer Eric Carroll explained the development process behind the stealth suit that ended up causing the whole "Night Monkey" phase.

 

“It’s inspired by a bunch of different looks in the comics,” Carroll said. “We have Noir, Big Time — but of course, when Ryan [Meinerding, concept artist and Marvel Studios head of visual development] was designing this, he has all the past S.H.I.E.L.D. agents in mind, so it’s very reminiscent of what Black Widow or Hawkeye wear. And it’s got all these little details, which Ryan’s amazing at.”

 

“We thought [the Stealth Suit] was so cool, but [director] Jon Watts really wanted to find a way to make it less cool,” he continued. “So he gave them these cheesy flip-up goggles, like those ‘80s glasses. [Tom] has to operate them manually, there’s no cool mechanism... And we’re like, ‘No, that’s the point... dumber! It’s got to look really dumb, when he has to flip that up.’ So, at the eleventh hour, he’s looking down all these imposing characters — Nick Fury and so on — and then [Peter] has to flip this up and talk to him.”

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Sorry, not laughing at you. I just recently learned what the term 'Karen' means to people outside the USA (see Urban Dictionary).

I think in this case because the character was created in a Sony film as part of its Spider-Man film rights, it could lead to a legal situation.

Spider-Man: Far From Home - What is a Night Monkey?

Outside the USA? Have you never seen any of the memes calling a woman "Karen"?

Pretty sure everyone (funny) refers to Carol Danver's hairdo as the "Karen cut".

[wiparker824]

15 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

OR... they walk away from Disney and the film "at worst" only makes $400 million in profit of which they keep all of it. 

Probably much more to be honest. Like it or not Spider-man sells itself to a large degree, especially worldwide. Spider-man 3 might have been panned by critics but it still made 890M in revenue. For reference Spider-man: Homecoming made 880M. Far From Home did a couple hundred million more, but still one can see why Sony would rather make mediocre movies that churn out massive profits that they keep all of. Even Venom pumped out 850M and the worst Spidey films (Amazing 1 & 2) still put up 700M+, which may not sound great when compared to massive Avengers type numbers, but Marvel’s had several films that haven’t touched 700M.

As a fan, I would love to see them work out a deal, but can understand why Sony wouldn’t want a 50/50 deal. They paid for the property (once upon a time), they own it, and they can make plenty of money with or without Marvel.

Edited August 22, 2019 by wiparker824

[justafan]

Ah this means another ASM title numbering reboot and 100 ridiculous variants that don't have anything to do with the story.

Nah Sony will just screw it up all over again and try to reboot the franchise in 2 years. If the next movie has more than 2 villains/antagonists that are not the sinister six, then I'll probably just wait for it on plex.

[Bosco685]

2 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Outside the USA? Have you never seen any of the memes calling a woman "Karen"?

Pretty sure everyone (funny) refers to Carol Danver's hairdo as the "Karen cut".

I never caught this before. But a group I belong to on another forum said it is a very common international term. You live and you learn.

'The Karen Cut' 

'I want to speak with your supervisor'

[Bosco685]

Social media never forgets.

[Mr Sneeze]

I like the idea of Disney not owning everything (I know they don't own Spidey's rights). Despite marvels success, there have been excellent movies from (the former) Fox/WB and Sony. Some of them better then anything Disney has done - for me at least - and I'm not putting them down, their success is well deserved and I have enjoyed much of their catalogue. But, I will say Spider-man was a distraction for me in IW and EG, I just ignored it (the suit and Stark's influence) the best I could and enjoyed the movies for what they were.

Sony still has made the best Spider-man movie to date in Raimi's Spider-Man 2 and Ito the Spider Verse was awesome.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Mr Sneeze

[paperheart]

9 hours ago, wiparker824 said:

Probably much more to be honest. Like it or not Spider-man sells itself to a large degree, especially worldwide. Spider-man 3 might have been panned by critics but it still made 890M in revenue. For reference Spider-man: Homecoming made 880M. Far From Home did a couple million more, but still one can see why Sony would rather make mediocre movies that churn out massive profits that they keep all of. Even Venom pumped out 850M and the worst Spidey films (Amazing 1 & 2) still put up 700M+, which may not sound great when compared to massive Avengers type numbers, but Marvel’s had several films that haven’t touched 700M.

As a fan, I would love to see them work out a deal, but can understand why Sony wouldn’t want a 50/50 deal. They paid for the property (once upon a time), they own it, and they can make plenty of money with or without Marvel.

$250MM is "a couple million more?"

[Xenosmilus]

If Sony and Disney really do split, Sony WILL have to do a total reboot since they will not be able to reference any of the past movies. Even simple things i.e. they can't use the current version of the Vulture because the Vulture is in jail because he was trying to steal Tony Starks stuff etc etc. They would have to use a new Vulture that isn't linked to the past movies.  Disney could make it a living hell for Sony (legally), where Disney, in theory could just drop Spider-man (unfortunately) and really not disrupt the MCU story line too much.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Xenosmilus

[wiparker824]

1 hour ago, paperheart said:

$250MM is "a couple million more?"

Sorry, meant to say couple hundred million. Edited.

Edited August 22, 2019 by wiparker824

[wiparker824]

5 minutes ago, Xenosmilus said:

If Sony and Disney really do split, Sony WILL have to do a total reboot since they will not be able to reference any of the past movies. Even simple things i.e. they can't use the Vulture because the Vulture is in jail because he was trying to steal Tony Starks stuff etc etc. They would have to use a new Vulture that isn't linked to the past movies.  Disney could make it a living hell for Sony, where Disney, in theory could just drop Spider-man (unfortunately) and really not disrupt the MCU story line too much.

 

•  

Why would they need to do a Vulture movie again? I don’t see the living hell you speak of. Just make another movie with Holland and don’t reference Vulture? They own tons of great villains they can use. Also I’m not sure why they’d want to see Sony fail, they make a ton of money off Spider-man merchandise, and that’s boosted by any successful movie.

[Xenosmilus]

15 minutes ago, wiparker824 said:

Why would they need to do a Vulture movie again? I don’t see the living hell you speak of. Just make another movie with Holland and don’t reference Vulture? They own tons of great villains they can use. Also I’m not sure why they’d want to see Sony fail, they make a ton of money off Spider-man merchandise, and that’s boosted by any successful movie.

The Vulture was an example. Another example is that they would not be able to reference Far From Home in their next movies because Nick Fury and the Krull were an integral part of the storyline, like Ironman was in Homecoming. Yes, Sony owns a ton of great villains and your point was my point in that they would have to reboot the series (with the same actors) but can not use the the current storyline. It's too ingrained with the MCU.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Xenosmilus

[wiparker824]

31 minutes ago, Xenosmilus said:

The Vulture was an example. Another example is that they would not be able to reference Far From Home in their next movies because Nick Fury and the Krull were an integral part of the storyline, like Ironman was in Homecoming. Yes, Sony owns a ton of great villains and your point was my point in that they would have to reboot the series (with the same actors) but can not use the the current storyline. It's too ingrained with the MCU.

Yeah, not continuing that story-line isn’t that difficult to be honest. Nick fury and Iron-man aren’t integral parts to great Spider-man stories. I agree that they’re not going to continue using those characters, I disagree that it’s somehow a living hell or difficult to tell a great Spider-man story and make a ton of money without those references.

[mosconi]

Who owns the movie rights to Mysterio, Sony or Marvel?  If a Sinister Six movie was made by Sony, would they need to negotiate rights with Marvel for any of the characters?

[Bosco685]

6 hours ago, Xenosmilus said:

If Sony and Disney really do split, Sony WILL have to do a total reboot since they will not be able to reference any of the past movies. Even simple things i.e. they can't use the current version of the Vulture because the Vulture is in jail because he was trying to steal Tony Starks stuff etc etc. They would have to use a new Vulture that isn't linked to the past movies.  Disney could make it a living hell for Sony (legally), where Disney, in theory could just drop Spider-man (unfortunately) and really not disrupt the MCU story line too much.

Not sure how accurate this may be.

Sony owns the film rights to all the characters. Sony, I believe, owns the contracts with the film leads and actors. The MCU produced the films on behalf of Sony so as to fulfill contractual obligations so as to use Spider-Man in its team films.

[fantastic_four]

19 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

20 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

What a mess when it comes to understanding these rights deals.

It's a good question. Does Marvel have only certain TV rights when it comes to Peter Parker/Spider-Man, or anything Spidey Universe related?

I believe it is to the whole thing... Spider-Man and associated characters... at the very worst scenario Disney/Marvel will still have some form of Spider-Man under their control... but like I said at worst case scenario there may be two iterations of Miles Morales on TV like there were two quicksilvers. 

This is still the aspect of the story that I find the most interesting.  Disney had Fox over this same hump, and I assumed at the time that Iger would really bend them over for Fox to get television rights.  Turns out Disney gave up the rights for little or nothing which surprised me, so will they do that again here?  Fox barely used them with their weak "The Gifted" show, but it sounds like Sony's plans are grander than Fox's were.  Disney is definitely playing hardball even more now than they did with Fox with that 50/50 deal, so denying Sony the rights that they had just given Lord and Miller $100+ million to develop seems like a HUGE bargaining chip.

As a Marvel fan, I want Iger to go for the throat and get those rights back, so I'm hoping he just cuts them off in every way possible.  Sony's GOING to screw this up, so better to bite the bullet now and let Sony flounder around for however long it takes.

Edited August 22, 2019 by fantastic_four

[Bosco685]

2 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

This is still the aspect of the story that I find the most interesting.  Disney had Fox over this same hump, and I assumed at the time that Iger would really bend them over for Fox to get television rights.  Turns out Disney gave up the rights for little or nothing which surprised me, so will they do that again here?  Fox barely used them with their weak "The Gifted" show, but it sounds like Sony's plans are grander than Fox's were.  Disney is definitely playing hardball even more now than they did with Fox with that 50/50 deal, so denying Sony the rights that they had just given Lord and Miller $100+ million to develop seems like a HUGE bargaining chip.

As a Marvel fan, I want Iger to go for the throat and get those rights back, so I'm hoping he just cuts them off in every way possible.  Sony's GOING to screw this up, so better to bite the bullet now and let Sony flounder around for however long it takes.

I wonder if this is under a separate agreement between Sony and Marvel TV which already had terms in place which were locked in before all this blowup? 

You don't put a nine-figure deal in place and not have all the legalize all sorted out in advance.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Bosco685

[fantastic_four]

16 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I wonder if this is under a separate agreement between Sony and Marvel TV which already had terms in place which were locked in before all this blowup? 

Could be.  You'd think so if they gave Lord and Miller all that money.  But maybe it's all mostly unspent and still up in the air.  Either way I'm sure they've spent millions already.  If we assume the Sony Spider-shows are locked in, the idea of ticking off Disney isn't something they can do lightly if they want their television deal eventually renewed.

Edited August 22, 2019 by fantastic_four

[fantastic_four]

One thing seems certain--Marvel's comics division WILL be giving Sony the cold shoulder.  Or maybe they've already been doing that for years?  I know that Marvel writers weren't allowed to create new mutant characters for years due to their film rights going automatically to Fox, so no new Spider-Man characters from now on, or from some previously-decided point in the past on.  I wonder how long Disney's executive team has recognized the mistake of giving Mile Morales away for free?  They won't be doing THAT again!  Have Axel Alonso or C.B. Cebulski already been prohibiting writers from creating new Spider-characters for a while?  

I know people love Spidey's rogues gallery--and so do I--but their quality is tied ENTIRELY to Spider-Man as a character.  We love them because we love Spider-Man.  Truly great villains like Galactus, Doctor Doom, or Magneto cross over into other titles, but which Spidey villains have successfully done that?  I can only think of one--the symbiote.  Besides Venom, which Spider-Man-related hero or villain has stood successfully on their own as anything other than a C-list character?  I can't think of any others, although a limited case can be made for Kingpin who became more of a Daredevil villain than he even now is for Spidey.  So I'm not sold on how large a universe Sony really has here.  Mysterio, Black Cat, or Kraven standalone spin-offs?  Umm, yea, good luck with that.  

Edited August 22, 2019 by fantastic_four