Marvel did the work and Sony slapped their name on it to receive their A. Dassit.
Sony didn't just suddenly become competent at making Spidey movies.
-
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.
I think it's time for Sony and Marvel to negotiate a new deal
- Thread starter Alo0oy
- Start date
Marvel did the work and Sony slapped their name on it to receive their A. Dassit.
Sony didn't just suddenly become competent at making Spidey movies.
Holland was not Marvel's pick. They wanted Plummer. Plummer clearly isn't Spider-Man so Sony apparently had some influence.
Also MCU wouldn't exist without Sony and Fox.
This is incredibly delusional. Sony, go sell PlayStation because super smash Bros is better than PlayStation All-stars
The Sony emails are so good because it's unbelievable how out of touch the leaders of their fucking company are. They just chuck out numbers half hazardly like 'A Sinister 6 movie would profit 2 billion dollars' and justify that figure by saying it will have dramatic special effects and 'Amazing Spider-Man' in the title. Like, what a crock of shit.
This doesn't have anything to do with the convo, but aight lol
Yes, let's keep getting junk Spiderman movies, over and over and over, forever.
Wow We might need a thread at this point to explain what the fuck a monopoly is and where it applies before we get any more posts like that. The exception being they're joke posts. I've never seen someone completely misunderstand what a monopoly is.
I'm pretty hyped for it too but I'll be less hyped if it's confirmed that there's zero connection to the MCU.
Most sources will say that is already the case, but if Tom Holland is in the movie then that's a contradiction no matter how Disney tries to spin it
That anybody thinks Sony has any say over what is and isn't in the MCU is comical.
They're a completely separate company. If Marvel says it ain't connected, it ain't connected. Whatever they do over there will be relegated to "what if?" status at best.
It's also comical if Tom Holland is in the movie and to argue it isn't in the MCU.
Fuck all this Hollywood politics bullshit. This is just about storytelling. If Peter Parker exists in this Venom world, then Venom exists in the MCU, because it's the same world that Peter Parker exists. If Marvel says it ain't connected, then they create a plot hole with Peter showing up - if he even shows up
Naaah, Sony would be smart to keep it's current deal. They have Spiderman and the whole of the Spiderverse to play with, that's more than enough. Venom and Spider-man Into The Spiderverse are looking great!
I don't know why people need stuff to be part of a MCU to enjoy it. The MCU is seeming like a bit of a mess lately to me.
I don't know why people need stuff to be part of a MCU to enjoy it. The MCU is seeming like a bit of a mess lately to me.
Lol whet?
No. If Holland shows up, but Marvel says it isn't connected, it is not connected. In which case, Holland's Peter in Venom is just some alternate universe Peter. There's no plot hole and no overcomplications. Audiences will be confused, which is why I'm sure Holland doesn't show up, but it's not really complicated.
It's Marvel's universe. Other studios can't dictate what appears in and is connected to it. Period.
If Marvel is the only company allowed to make movies based on Marvel characters, how will anyone else have a chance?!
THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
You're not convincing me of anything here.
Sony still owns Spiderman so if Peter show up (not likely but still) so whatever happens in the movie supersedes whatever the fuck comes out of Kevin Feige's mouth
Sony owns Spider-Man's film rights. But they don't have a say over anything that happens in the Marvel Cinematic Universe without Feige's ok. If Feige says it ain't in the universe, it ain't in the universe. Period. There's absolutely no debating otherwise without sounding like an idiot.
It's like arguing Fox can decide to make X3 The Last Stand part of the MCU because Stan Lee made a cameo in it lol.
They'd also run into issues trying to but the company with the Japanese government probably getting involved. I know it's a publicly traded company, but because of the importance of Sony, they might not allow a buyout of the company (or at the very least not a buyout of all of the company, maybe just the film side and that's it).
I think it's hilarious. Anti Disney because they're making ish people want to go see.
I'm not debating because I don't care. If Peter Parker is in this movie then Venom is in the MCU. Fuck the politics
Nothing really overly political about any of it. Company A owns something and Company B can't dictate anything that happens with it. That's regular shit.
And you are debating. You have been this whole time. You're throwing in the towel now because you're wrong and don't know how else to argue your point. And that's ok. Believe what you want, because ultimately, none of this matters. Believe the Fox-Verse takes place in the MCU too, for all the good it'll do you.
If you start your argument with "...well Feige said this..." then it's outside of the realm of storytelling, that's heads saying this and that about their films.
And I'm not debating because I'm not literally telling you you're wrong about your logic. It makes sense, I just don't give a fuck but your condescending tone is getting really annoying. Don't bother having a discussion if you can't have a mutual respect
Feige runs Marvel Studios, who owns the MCU; no story in the universe is told without his ok.
Nothing overly political about it. It's a simple concept that is only complicated if you're a child who doesn't understand how intellectual property works or an adult throwing a tantrum that a movie you like isn't canon. It's easy.
I have respect for you. I told you you could believe what you want, because none of this really matters. You can argue Star Wars would take place in the MCU without "politics" if you really wanted to. Let your imagination run wild, even if what you believe isn't remotely true. Who cares?
Some of you really need to get over this already.
There's more good Spidey movies than bad though.
There's more good Spidey movies than bad though.
My thoughts exactly. I can't think of a stupider move that Sony could make then giving up the Spider-man rights. They own part of the actual character, not just the movie rights.
Okay. What I am trying to tell you is that whatever happens in the movie, if Peter Parker shows up (most likely he won't) then it contradicts whatever Feige says about the movie beforehand. Because Peter being canon makes the worlds connected and nothing Feige says changes what takes place in the movie.
This is the same type of fight for the Netflix shows and that's Hollywood politics to me too - meaning the reason why the Netflix characters haven't been shown or mentioned in the movies is not because they don't exist in the same world, not because it wouldn't make sense narratively, but because Feige and whoever else up top doesn't care to connect them. That's what I mean when I say politics
They're definitely nowhere as egregious as Fox's take on X-Men. But even their better films don't really capture Spidey to me. Homecoming was the first, and we know that's largely a result of Sony stepping back and letting Feige and co. do their thing.
No. It just means Venom's world has a Peter Parker in it. Not that it's the same Peter Parker as the one who appears in the MCU. And if Feige says it isn't the same one, it doesn't matter if Holland shows up and is playing him; it isn't the same one, and that's that. It'll effectively just be some alternate universe, which is a thing in comics anyways. That's just one company owning a property and another one not. Even for the sake of storytelling, you can't ignore that (I mean, you can, but it won't be true just because you will it so).
Likening it to the Netflix shows doesn't make sense either, when at least those have the benefit of being under the same company (even if it's two different divisions) and references to other things in the movie universe (even if the reverse isn't true outside of some SHIELD stuff). Sony can't reference anything in the MCU without Feige's say so, so you're not gonna see any quips about the Avengers or anything because the movie is not in the same universe.
But who cares? Believe what you want, man. It won't be true, but you can absolutely believe it.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck. Doesn't matter what Feige says. Perception is reality.
There's a healthy part of the audience that thinks Fox's X-Men take place in the MCU.
Perception counts for a lot, but perceiving something to be true doesn't make it any realer.
Which is why I keep coming back to this; believe what you want. It won't be true, but you can believe whatever you need to believe to enjoy these stories the way you want to.
The reality is that Peter Parker most likely won't even be in the movie which means this movie isn't connected to the MCU in any way, shape or form. That has been established.
However, on the offset random possibility that Tom Holland does show up, how can it not be the same Spiderman if it's the same actor? This is the whole reason they switch actors to separate universes. Christian Bale to Ben Affleck, Andrew Garfield to Tom Holland, but how can it be different with the the same actor in literally the same role?
Because different characters from different universes looking the exact same isn't something that's ever been done before.
Yeah, no.
I don't think it's ever been done with comic book movies and the MCU is a juggernaut of a franchise. In fact I'm pretty sure it's the highest grossing film franchise of all time, or is on its way there if it isn't already
It never being done with comic movies before wouldn't matter, even if it was true (Deadpool says hi).
It's a first time for everything. No.
And the MCU being the biggest movie franchise of all time doesn't have any bearing on this. Again, no.
Ghost Rider and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance both star Nick Cage as Johnny Blaze/ Ghost Rider but those movies do not share a continuity.
I know it happened with Deadpool but if it happened with Peter Parker then we're talking about having a character that's already part of a billion dollar franchise. It'll be convoluted to say the least, explaining how it's a different character if he even is present
I'm guessing the same cycle as last time plays out: Marvel lets Sony do their thing, fuck it up, and wait for them to come back to the table.
An actor playing two different versions of the same character isn't that big a deal.
Audiences will be confused (because audiences are typically idiots), but it's not complicated.
So, nah. This is a "believe what you want, but what Marvel says goes" situation, and always has been.
Supporting the same character, though But you have a point.
Bro I can tell you right now that if you're trying to convince me, it's not gonna work. The MCU is a huge franchise, and Peter Parker is a part of it. If he's in this movie then it will not be easy at all to portray him as a different Peter Parker
if they wanted Spiderman in this movie, why wouldn't they just cast someone new? Why would it have to be the same person?
If Sony says Venom is in the MCU, and Feige says no, and Sony replies "k we taking Spidey back", who budges?
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, nigga. Believe what you want. What you want to believe just isn't true unless Marvel says it is. End of discussion.
Sony can do whatever they want to do with Holland as Parker because Sony has sole rights over the character. But if Marvel says Venom or whatever movie ain't in their universe, it ain't in their universe, and there's nothing Sony can do or say that'd change that because they have absolutely no say so because the MCU isn't their property. They'd keep Holland because they want audiences to think "oh, this is connected!" even though it won't be, and that's that.
If Sony is smart they'll keep sharing Spider-Man with the MCU and do their own thing with the universe like they're currently doing. Spider-Man is in good hands with Feige and it'd be dumb to pull him out of the connected MCU world.
If the movie is a success and Peter shows up but they imply he's unrelated to the MCU, I don't know how Sony will handle that storytelling going forward. But you're right, if this is something they wanted to do, they can and will, whether the audience buys it or not. I appreciate you having the patience to put up with me
Replacing 'monopoly' with consolidation and homogeneity might be the more accurate way to frame the sentiment. I'm certainly looking forward to none of the more niche elements of X-Men getting explored now that they're likely to be roled into a crowded MCU that only can have so many features a year.
Sony is certainly acting like the deal is done after FFH and they will reboot the character in their spiderverse. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking Venom is not gonna do well because the youtube trailer views and social media reactions have been good. Sony has plans for Kraven, Morbius, Silver & Black, probably others. That tells me they have long term plans for it, even though I think they should dump the film division and double down on TV production.
I will pretty much paste what I posted in another thread. I think people should be more worried about Disney wanting to resign that contract than Sony. Disney has no incentive to resign the agreement now that their sandbox got a lot bigger. Especially when they have to pay tens of millions of dollars to Sony based on the BO gross for every Spider-man movie made (and presumably the spin offs too). From a business perspective, Disney has no need to resign and can wish Sony good luck with the license. The only way I see Disney resigning is if one or both of the following are true:
1) SM merchandise really took a nose dive after ASM2. We don't have evidence of this at all though and merchandise probably saw an uptick after that movie came out
2) Concessions are given by Sony and they loosen their grip on the license. We don't know exactly what the 2015 amendment did besides a change in the % that Disney has to pay Sony. If they haven't already changed this prior to the 2015 deal, I believe things like annulment of rights to assign (section 23), Fox Kingpin characters fully reverse and are not available to SPE (schedule 7B, section 4f), further revision to the fee (i.e. go back to Sony paying Marvel 5% of the BO gross. Section 7), changes to the reversion dates (i.e. three within eight removed, section 6b), live action television production (section 6e) etc. Some of those might have been changed in 2015, but Disney would want even further changes before resigning.
Sony is in the 8-9% marketshare for the past 4 years, including this year. They have been keeping their budget under control, but I don't see this big turnaround you're talking about.
I will pretty much paste what I posted in another thread. I think people should be more worried about Disney wanting to resign that contract than Sony. Disney has no incentive to resign the agreement now that their sandbox got a lot bigger. Especially when they have to pay tens of millions of dollars to Sony based on the BO gross for every Spider-man movie made (and presumably the spin offs too). From a business perspective, Disney has no need to resign and can wish Sony good luck with the license. The only way I see Disney resigning is if one or both of the following are true:
1) SM merchandise really took a nose dive after ASM2. We don't have evidence of this at all though and merchandise probably saw an uptick after that movie came out
2) Concessions are given by Sony and they loosen their grip on the license. We don't know exactly what the 2015 amendment did besides a change in the % that Disney has to pay Sony. If they haven't already changed this prior to the 2015 deal, I believe things like annulment of rights to assign (section 23), Fox Kingpin characters fully reverse and are not available to SPE (schedule 7B, section 4f), further revision to the fee (i.e. go back to Sony paying Marvel 5% of the BO gross. Section 7), changes to the reversion dates (i.e. three within eight removed, section 6b), live action television production (section 6e) etc. Some of those might have been changed in 2015, but Disney would want even further changes before resigning.
Sony is in the 8-9% marketshare for the past 4 years, including this year. They have been keeping their budget under control, but I don't see this big turnaround you're talking about.
Counterpoint: Disney is already prepping MCU Spider-Man for Disney Land, and gets a boost in marketing for having him guest star in their other films.