• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Official Trailer for 'The Night Monkey', from Sony Pictures Entertainment

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
Antoo said:
The issue is it wasn't good. Disney worked FOR FREE in hopes of a better deal in the future.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Disney did not work for free, on top of milestones and day 1 %, they received a massive payday in terms of boosts to toy royalties — that generate an absurd amount of evergreen money.

Disney asked for an absurdly lopsided deal, Sony said no and offered improved terms on the original deal (with some reporting that Sony offered up to 25%).

If any company should have bled a bit for this weird idea of 'the greater good', it should have been Disney.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
Dalek said:
Damn. Right off the bat.

final_5d7d92a150069300149396a3_733394.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean sure but I'm enjoying the view from the upper deck of the SS Holy Fuckballs All These Companies Suck And Spider-Man Should Have Entered Public Domain Decades Ago
 
Antoo

Antoo

Member
May 1, 2019
3,783
Seeya said:
Disney did not work for free, and they received a massive payday in terms of boosts to toy royalties.

Disney asked for an absurdly lopsided deal, Sony said no and offered improved terms on the original deal (with some reporting that Sony offered up to 25%).

If any company should have bled a bit for this weird idea of 'the greater good', it should have been Disney.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They own the merchandising rights. That's out of the equation and has nothing to do with this. Disney also had to pay royalties for solo Spidey films.

They diverted resources they could be using for their own films for a movie for Sony. This delays their other productions (Black Panther was famously pushed so Spider-Man could be out beforehand).

Also, if we are going to believe Sony would pick up 25% then we can also believe that Disney wanted 30% but Sony refused to even talk to them. The thing is their are multiple conflicting reports on what terms they all wanted. Most land on the fact that a 25-30% deal is what Disney wanted.
 
AlexFlame116

AlexFlame116

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer
Member
Nov 17, 2017
23,182
Utah
Seeya said:
Tom Holland was Sony's pick over who Disney wanted, and things turned out great. They at least have the same director, and many of the same people involved for the 3rd entry.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why do people keep doing this? Disney didn't hate Tom Holland or not want him. They liked Tom. They just had another in mind.

And Tom Holland was also picked by the Russo Brothers. They really liked him.

It can get as annoying as the people who keep saying that Sony wins because of Into the Spider-Verse when that movie was made and was awesome in spite of Sony.
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
Antoo said:
They owned the merchandising rights. That's out of the equation and has nothing to do with this.

They diverted resources they could be using for their own films for a movie for Sony. This delays their other productions (Black Panther was famously pushed so Spider-Man could be out beforehand).

Also, if we are going to believe Sony would pick up 25% then we can also believe that Disney wanted 30% but Sony refused to even talk to them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No merchandising rights had everything to do with this and factored into negotiations. If Sony still had those then they wouldn't have been in a position to get off as easy in compensation to Disney for help on the film's.

A source of revenue that generates billions, and is positively effected by a film performance and reception in exposing the IP absolutely factors into negotiations AND decision making when one company has them and the other doesn't and they both share said IP.

Can you explain your position on why such an elephant in the room actually would have had zero impact on decision making? That these contracts were negotiated in a complete vaccum? It just wouldn't work that way.
 
Antoo

Antoo

Member
May 1, 2019
3,783
Baki said:
No they didn't. They got 5% and 100% of the merch.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They get 5% of first day grosses (Sony releases FFH on a Tuesday by the way). Once again, merch has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DEAL. The rights were sold off almost a decade ago. They also had to pay royalties for solo Spidey films AND use their internal resources to help make the movies.
 
boontobias

boontobias

Avenger
Apr 14, 2018
9,538
Can we all agree that the only thing worse than nerds arguing about comic book movies is them arguing that they know anything about the internal dealings of multibillion dollar companies?
 
BladeoftheImmortal

BladeoftheImmortal

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,467
Antoo said:
Disney made movies for free for Sony. They offered resources and time to essentially show Sony they could be a good partner so when the time comes they could renegotiate for a better deal that benefits both parties. Disney took a loss so they could use Spidey in team movies (which they have none on the horizon) and so they could get a better deal in the long run.

They only got 5% of first day grosses and had to pay royalties for solo Spidey films. Fuck em right?

New sources have said Sony wasn't willing to negotiate when Disney was trying to contact them. Disney wanted a 25-30% co-financing plan. I guess the smarter thing was for Disney to divert all their teams to work on stuff they wouldn't get a single cent from.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Let me weep for one of the richest companies on Earth. Lol. Fact is they're trying to strong arm Sony into a better deal than they should have. So yes, fuck em
 
Lunchbox-

Lunchbox-

Member
Nov 2, 2017
11,891
bEast Coast
Seeya said:
Tom Holland was Sony's pick over who Disney wanted, and things turned out great. They at least have the same director, and many of the same people involved for the 3rd entry.

And Venom was fantastic. The two of them will play off of one another very well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Spider man 3
Amazing Spider-man
Amazing Spider-man 2
Venom

glad you enjoyed that run, sony will make more for you and 11 other people who liked them as well👌
 
Imperial Bishop

Imperial Bishop

Member
Oct 26, 2017
35,583
This made me chuckle until I realized this is kind of exploitative on Sony's part.

Starting off the trailer with "I'm tired of the lies" is too on-the-nose at what they're trying to do.
 
Antoo

Antoo

Member
May 1, 2019
3,783
BladeoftheImmortal said:
Let me weep for one of the richest companies on Earth. Lol. Fact is they're trying to strong arm Sony into a better deal than they should have. So yes, fuck em
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How is 25-30% co-financing a bad deal? They helped restore the brand in film after so much damage. They helped them control the budget significantly. But I guess it's ok if Sony walks away with a lopsided deal in their favor where they just sit on their asses all day and get money. The original deal was meant to show a partnership between the two companies will can be good. It benefitted Sony more to show what the results can be. But Disney is greedy for not wanting to make movies for peanuts right? While Sony is not being greedy also when they want to print cash for free?
 

Deleted member 7051

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,254
muteKi said:
Another Spider-Man rights squabble thread where we all ignore that Spider-Verse exists. 'K
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think a big problem with that line of thought is unless Rothman and Lord are making the next Spidey movie, Spiderverse is irrelevant to the quality of live action Spiderman movies. Even ignoring that animation is inherently better than live action for superhero stuff, we've had seven live action movies including Venom and depending upon who you ask, only... three?... of those are actually any good and the people that made them aren't working for Sony any more.

We can't really sit here bemoaning the Morbius movie with Jared Leto or Venom getting a sequel only to then change gears and say, actually, Sony can totally handle this - it'll be fine. Either the concept of a Spiderman Cinematic Universe is a terrible idea that Sony will fuck up completely or they're better at this than they're given credit and we should support all the movies in it.
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
Lunchbox- said:
Spider man 3
Amazing Spider-man
Amazing Spider-man 2
Venom

glad you enjoyed that run, sony will make more for you and 11 other people who liked them as well👌
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I didn't especially like ASM1, and never bothered to watch ASM2. This Strange 'you'll get what you deserve' thing is meh. I did thouroughly enjoy Venom, it was an oddball B movie comedy romance buddy cop film that had a perfect approach for Venom itself (framing both of them as goofy losers akin to the deadly protector run) that had lightning in a bottle casting on Tom Hardy. I'm hopeful that the sequel can retain it's subversive nature, the B movie feel, while upping the quality overall because outside oh the highlights it was a bad film.

And a LOT more than 11 people liked Venom. It did great numbers, repeat viewings, and after market sales. it's still in the top 20 selling BRs for the year of 2019. Venom was well liked and did a ton of its viewing through repeats.

Also Venom was roughly speaking the third most profitable Spider-Man film ever.

I'm the end, at least the next Spider-Man film is safe (though I'm hopeful that they improve the third outing), Spider-verse will be A+ quality given the handlers, and we'll see from there. Life goes on, and just because there's no Sony/Disney deal now doesn't mean that there won't be again in the future.
 
CosmicGP

CosmicGP

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,887
*Sigh* Couldn't they at least just finished a trilogy before breaking up? These were pleasant, charming, fun movies. Now they're going to turn into dumbshit movies (but with a charming cast).
 
IcyInferno

IcyInferno

Member
Oct 26, 2017
373
BladeoftheImmortal said:
It's Disney's fault at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It really is when you look at the history of copyright law. Spider-man's copyright should have expired this year and Mickey Mouse many more years ago but did not thanks to Disney's Lobbying in the 90's. Steamboat Willie will finally be public domain and with it the original version of Mickey Mouse in 2024... but we have to wait until 2057 for Spider-man to be in the public domain.

Copyright law needs to be revised to get characters into public domain sooner. Why should Disney or Sony get exclusive film rights to a character created over 50 years ago. What makes them think they can create a better Spider-Man movie than an up and coming indie film maker for example? Spider-Man would do so much better in the public domain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.