Topic: Disney & Sony make up!! Spider-Man back in the MCU!!!.... For now.

[Shorty McNostril]

Hell yes!!!!

If nothing else but for more JJ Jameson in the MCU.  We only just got him back.  I'd love to see him go nuts on the whole Avengers team.

[UncleBob]

At this point, you're just trolling for the sake of trolling.

I have no patience for the levels of outright screaming & petulant whining I saw across the internet when it was originally reported that Spidey was leaving the MCU. Not an end to Spidey fikms altogether, jist the Spidey would no longer be the MCU's Anazing Friend. You'd think that Disney had made a shitty Star Wars movie, only pettier. It was like watching the Final Fantasy 7 fanbase all over again: they're already the company's favorite children, pandered to quite often. But one thing goes against their wishes, and they lose their minds.

So, yes.

[BranDonk Kong]

The other takeaway from the new deal is that the Spider-Verse and the MCU are sorta connected. So things could happen in the MCU which affect the Spider-Verse and visa-versa. Also apparently Sony's Spider-Man exclusivity is a 20 year deal, so it may end in 2022 anyway.

[ThePerm]

I have no patience for the levels of outright screaming & petulant whining I saw across the internet

This is funny coming from you.

At this point, you're just trolling for the sake of trolling.

I have no patience for the levels of outright screaming & petulant whining I saw across the internet when it was originally reported that Spidey was leaving the MCU. Not an end to Spidey fikms altogether, jist the Spidey would no longer be the MCU's Anazing Friend. You'd think that Disney had made a shitty Star Wars movie, only pettier. It was like watching the Final Fantasy 7 fanbase all over again: they're already the company's favorite children, pandered to quite often. But one thing goes against their wishes, and they lose their minds.

consider if we go back on the internet and we go back to how much people gloated about Spider-man originally joining the MCU the disappointment made a lot of sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcmT1zJ26UE

The other weird psychological reason why we hated Spider-man being gone so much was what went down on Infinity War. It's like it was happening all over again. Sony snapped their fingers and he was gone.

[BlackNMild2k1]

The other takeaway from the new deal is that the Spider-Verse and the MCU are sorta connected. So things could happen in the MCU which affect the Spider-Verse and visa-versa. Also apparently Sony's Spider-Man exclusivity is a 20 year deal, so it may end in 2022 anyway.

Where'd you hear this?

[ThePerm]

I've never heard that anywhere. It wasn't in that long contract I read a week ago. Though I don't know how legit that is. Words I read were perpetuity as long as they keep pumping them out.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I just ran across this Deadline article on the Spider-Man back in the MCU story after coming across a video on youtube talking about the Marvel Sony deal....
both seem to either get the facts wrong, or make an assumption based on incorrect info not stated in any source other than themselves....

https://deadline.com/2019/09/sony-walt-disneys-marvel-team-on-third-spider-man-homecoming-title-with-superhero-to-appear-in-future-marvel-pics-1202746497/

Deadline is talking about Disney/Marvel getting an 25% equity stake in the Spider-Man franchise as part of this deal. Meaning that Marvel/Disney is a 25% owner of Spider-Man again? or what exactly do they mean by 25% equity stake? It usually means owning a piece of "business/product". But nowhere in any of the other stories I've seen has anyone mentioned "Equity Stake"

UPDATED with more details: Sony has agreed to the terms that Disney originally proposed for its participation in a third Spider-Man movie, whereby Disney/Marvel would co-finance 25% of a third Homecoming movie for a 25% equity stake. The deal also calls for Spider-Man appearing in one more Disney/Marvel movie.

This is also a big win for Sony here in continuing a series that will likely give it another $1 billion-plus-grossing film along with an 8% distribution fee or higher. Additionally, the deal keeps intact the creative steering of Disney’s Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige, who led two of the best and most profitable fan-pleasing pics in the Spidey film canon to $2 billion worldwide.

and here it is on Forbes.com - Scott Mendelson
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/09/28/spider-man-batman-suicide-squad-lebron-james-shang-chi-thor-tom-cruise-jurassic-avatar-indiana-jones-star-wars-marvel-disney-box-office/#7fb49f627f55

The cost for the brokered peace was 25 %, with Disney putting up around 25% of the production budget for the third Spidey flick and thus getting 25% of the profits. But the big news isn’t just that Holland’s specific interpretation of Peter Parker will remain technically encased within the MCU. Nor is it necessarily the news that Disney will now essentially own 25% of another studio’s crown jewel IP, although that part of the deal should give us all pause. What stood out is that this third Spider-Man movie will open on July 16, 2021.

and this comes from a video channel I will occasionally watch that was stating that Marvel is now "25% involved" in all of the Spidey spin-offs moving forward since they own 25% of the IP now....

WUUUUUUT!!!!?

where are they getting this from?

as far as I can tell from all the stories and comments I've seen, Disney/Marvel is co-financing 25% of the next MCU Spider-Man movie and also getting Spidey to appear in 1 more MCU movie. That is all at the moment.
Sony will get to carry with their "Venomverse/Spidey-verse" and now Tom Holland will be able to be the "same" Spider-Man across both the MCU and the SonySpidey-verse.

Chances are they will not reference each other at all. It's possible that the "multi-verse" carries MCU Holland into the Sonyverse and back again, or more likely that it's just a different Holland being a different Spider-Man (in hopefully a different Spidey suit) in a alt-universe completely unrelated and unaware of each others existence.

But where does this "equity share" and Marvel working on all of Sony's Spidey side=projects come from? Did I miss something somewhere?

[broodwars]

How I interpret this is that Disney is putting up 25% of the costs for 25% of the profit. Anything else just doesn't make sense. The way I understood it, previously Disney paid almost all the cost and Sony made almost all the profit.

[ThePerm]

The authors of the article probably misused words.

Marvel is delving into the multi-verse and Sony is delving into a multi-verse. Now is the perfect time for writing a perfect continuity patch.

[BlackNMild2k1]

How I interpret this is that Disney is putting up 25% of the costs for 25% of the profit. Anything else just doesn't make sense. The way I understood it, previously Disney paid almost all the cost and Sony made almost all the profit.

No, the way it worked before was Sony paid the bills, Sony made profits.
Marvel did the work, and got paid for the work they did plus milestone bonuses, and 5% of first day gross.

Now Disney wanted to pay part of the cost to take an equal amount of profit to make the continued partnership not so one sided on the profit side of things.

I'll dig up my previous post from elsewhere and repeat it here as I had some numbers in there about why this whole deal made sense.

[UncleBob]

Think of it though.  Venom made $800m.  Marvel's last few movies have been $1b.

If Sony lets Marvel pay for 25% of production costs but only take home 75% of the box office, assuming Marvel gets them a few more $1b+ movies, they'll be out in front *and* get to claim more $1b box office hits, helping their company value and stock prices.

And none of these articles seem to cover home video/streaming profits.  As much as I was okay with the Venom movie, I likely won't see it again.  I've seen the MCU movies 2+ times each (granted, anything that is just a flat two times was only in theaters - although, ironically, I've only seen FFH once) and am eyeing that box set.  If Sony gets Marvel to do the legwork on their Spiderverse, I really see no downside for them.

Honestly, I don't see why Marvel pursued Spider-Man so fiercely.  I'm glad it's in the MCU, but honestly, I think the entire MCU would have developed Civil War and beyond without him just fine*.  Let Sony Pictures continue to struggle to understand the formula and eventually sell the rights back to Disney or be bought by Apple and the rights revert back.  I can only guess Marvel didn't want Sony to taint the Spider-Man franchise to Fant4stic levels of bad before either of those happened.

*Assuming there was never an MCU Spider-Man.  Once he was there, there's no going back.

[BlackNMild2k1]

This is my post from 2 weeks ago today.

I was attempting to lay out the facts of the deal that was in place, and then look at the benefits of the potential offer in play to renew the deal that had expired.

I've been keeping up with this passively, so I just want to get a better understanding of the ENTIRE situation at play here.

Marvel Studios has essentially been making Spider-Man movies for Sony for basically peanuts on the dollar (paid as a production house and hitting certain B.O. Milestone bonuses), with the added benefit of getting to use Spider-Man in the MCU proper. This deal was set-up as a measure of good faith to show how working together can benefit both sides. Marvel Studios not only reigned in the movie budget, but increased the B.O. gross and quality of the project as a whole by making it a part of a much larger machine in the MCU.
 
After 3 cameo appearances and 2 solo movies, the collaborative deal was to expire.
So Disney sought to re-negotiate this deal to be more beneficial to Disney/Marvel Studios, since they were in fact using one of their "movie slots" in the phase, their time, talent and self supporting HYPE machine to make and promote these solo Spidey movies into being not only more likable, successful, and profitable, but also the highest grossing Sony movie in Sony movie history.
And for clarification, this deal is ONLY for Spidey movies related to the MCU, right? this is not Disney taking back a portion of the license, as this is only about making these movies with direct connections to the MCU, right?


Movie: Production Budgets/Gross - (profit):
Far From Home: $160M/$1.128B - ($404M)
Homecoming: $175M/$880M - ($265M)
Amazing Spider-Man 2: $260M(?)/$709M - ($94.5M)
Amazing Spider-Man: $230M/$758M - ($149M)
Spider-Man 3: $258M/$891M - ($187.5M)
Spider-Man 2: $200M/$783M - ($191M)
Spider-Man: $139M/$821M - ($271M)

To keep things simple, I'm using 50% of gross - budget = profit (not even counting marketing.....)
As you can see the Sony made Spider-Man movies always have the habit of increased budget and decreasing profits.
That profit shrinks even more once you factor in marketing if it's not already accounted for.
On the other hand, the Marvel Studios made Spider-Man movies actually have a more reasonable budget and increasing profit margin.  Going by the simplified chart above, FFH almost made Sony as much money as the previous 3 Spider-Man movies combined. Add in Homecoming and Sony made more off those 2 MCU SM movies than they have on all other live action Spider-man movies, outside of Spider-Man 1, COMBINED.
Sony's highest profiting Spider-Man is the 1st one..... they've never been that successful again.


So with all that being laid out..... Disney comes back to the negotiating table to make a new deal that is mutually beneficial to both sides. To my knowledge, Disney after having already given the sweetheart promotional limited time offer deal, now wanted to also profit from this partnership directly as well.
They offered a COST and PROFIT split (lots of people seem to keep forgetting that) - splitting the risk, sharing the rewards.
Something along the lines of:
50/50 split - Disney takes 50% of production cost and 50% of profit split (on FFH, Sony would've spent $80M and made $202M)
75/25 split - Disney takes on 25% of production cost and 25% or profit split (on FFH, Sony would've spent $120M and made $303)
and I heard about an uneven split as well:
50/30 split - Where Disney takes on 50% of the cost, but only takes 30% of the profits (on FFH, Disney would've spent $80M and made $169M - Sony makes $234M)

Looking at the breakdown, all of those situations are still win-win for Sony as Marvel Studios is doing the majority of the heavy lifting. Assuming Budget and Gross stay relatively the same going forward, with any of the splits mentioned above, Sony still makes more on any future Spider-Man movie made by Marvel Studios than they were making on their own. (outside of SM1)


I understand that Sony loves the deal that was in place, but that was never destined to last. That was a peace offering on good faith for more beneficial terms in the near future. More like taking a low paid internship to eventually land that lucrative paycheck after getting your foot int he door and proving yourself.

and once again using the same simplified calculation as the SM movies for Venom:
Venom: $100M/$854M - ($328M)

I can see why Sony might get a little bold and think they can go about it on their own, but do we really expect the budget of the next Venom movie to be so low, or the gross to be so high? It theoretically made more profit than any of the Sony made SM movies, but looking at the trend for Sony made SM related movies.... do we really expect that to continue in a positive direction? And then we have Morbius... I don't know how connected they plan on making it to their "venom-verse" but I doubt results will be anywhere near what they experienced with Hype and curiosity around a first ever Venom movie.

I personally agree with Joe Russo in thinking it's a mistake for Sony Execs to think they can witness first hand what Feige and crew over at Marvel Studios have been able to accomplish, and think they can venture out on their own and recreate it no problem, now that the character was rebooted in that light..... it's not that simple, and they'll eventually/hopefully realize that before it's too late to continue with what is already proven to be working right now (before the fans suffer).

I'm pretty sure these two come back to the table and hopefully work something out (after Morbius and Venom 2, but hopefully before production on a SM: Homeless starts).
In the meantime, the MCU can tell a majority of stories that take place in the Cosmic MCU and for things earth related, can focus on that time span of 5 years between IW and Endgame and the first few years since.

Also, could Marvel Studios also use Tom Holland on a Spider-Man D+ limited series to continue the storyline from the movies if Sony decides to not carry on the relationship? Or is there a clause in his contract to not allow that?

As you can see, any cost/profit split Disney was rumored to offer, were all beneficial to Sony, so I think it made sense for Sony to continue the deal w/ that split in play, but it also makes sense that they too wanted to use "Spider-man" in their own in-house made movies as well.
Hopefully they allow Marvel to use whichever villains they want, and work towards the MCU Sinister Six that is currently being built instead of trying to force movies no one is asking just to pad out their venom-verse thing.... and therefore blocking what could be far superior usage of said characters

If they are really going to push this "multi-verse" alt-dimension angle, I really hope it doesn't restrict the toy box of characters Marvel has access too, just because Sony fears the audience will get confused.. or prefer the MCU version over theirs. (we won't be confused... and MCU versions have nailed it so far... but that's not to say Sony couldn't get one right too. Doc Ock was good back in the day.)


edit: well.... anyways.... I think this is a good summary. LOL
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FilthySoreHomalocephale-mobile.mp4

[BlackNMild2k1]

Apparently, it was Holland who saved MCU Spider-Man.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/tom-hollands-last-minute-appeal-helped-seal-a-spider-man-deal-1244688

He took it upon himself to bring Iger & Rothman back to the table and work out a deal for atleast 1 more movie.

[nickmitch]

"With great power, comes great responsibility."

[BlackNMild2k1]

#bestspider-man

[broodwars]

Actor wants to continue to get paid for the most important role in their career, so they push to get paid for another movie. In other breaking news, people die if they are killed. 

[BlackNMild2k1]

Umm.... I didn't see previous Spider-men push to continue their series..... or push to keep their series from becoming a mess.
and it wasn't as if Holland wasn't going to continue making Spider-Man movies, he was just going to continue them outside of the MCU.

This Spider-Man went the extra mile to make sure his series would continue to be in the larger Marvel toybox where at least his next movie would be prevented from falling into the same declining hole that all the previous SonySpidey movies fell into.

(but yes, your sarcasm is also noted)

[Adrock]

Being in a good Spider-Man movie is also better for his career than being in a bad Spider-Man movie (though Andrew Garfield is doing well for himself). Sony managed to jack up two Spider-Man film franchises. I don’t even know how that’s possible. Good for Tom Holland for using his limited Actor-Power® to get Disney and Sony back to the table and say, “Hey, guys, can we, like, not?”

[UncleBob]

Actor-Tingle®

[BranDonk Kong]

Tom Holland is a lifelong Spider-Man fan, I'm sure he wants what is actually best for the character that he's playing - which is 100% keeping him in the MCU.

[ThePerm]

Being in a good Spider-Man movie is also better for his career than being in a bad Spider-Man movie (though Andrew Garfield is doing well for himself). Sony managed to jack up two Spider-Man film franchises. I don’t even know how that’s possible. Good for Tom Holland for using his limited Actor-Power® to get Disney and Sony back to the table and say, “Hey, guys, can we, like, not?”

It hasn't hurt Andrew Garfield. I really liked Under the Silver Lake.

[Adrock]

Being in a good Spider-Man movie is also better for his career than being in a bad Spider-Man movie (though Andrew Garfield is doing well for himself). Sony managed to jack up two Spider-Man film franchises. I don’t even know how that’s possible. Good for Tom Holland for using his limited Actor-Power® to get Disney and Sony back to the table and say, “Hey, guys, can we, like, not?”

It hasn't hurt Andrew Garfield. I really liked Under the Silver Lake.

I know. You literally quoted me stating he’s doing well for himself.

[ThePerm]

I was agreeing with you  QFT yo