The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[swanpride]

I am sure Feige will jump in and sort them out. Can't be worse than dealing with perlmutter...

[Jeebus Cripes]

20 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

But I'd much rather a movie that focuses almost entirely on mutants, with maybe a cameo or two from other MCU characters. I honestly don't know how they're planning to introduce mutants without rehashing Xavier's story and the original five X-Men, but I'd much rather they find a novel approach that doesn't involve me being asked to care about Cyclops and Wolverine again.

Aw, but if I could just finally see a Cyclops on screen who actually has some semblance to comic Cyclops, that would be swell. Wolverine, I could do without, TBH.

I'm just going to politely ignore this Spider-Man talk and pretend this shit isn't happening. 

[Bill1978]

Am I missing something from this Spider-Man talk? While it sux that Spider-Man can't appear in an MCU movie and MCU characters can't pop into his world, shouldn't we still be getting the similar Spider-Man movies with Tom Holland (young and humorous etc) after the deal breaks up just without any referencing of Tony Stark (thank God!) or random cameos to remind as he is in the MCU? I am struggling to understand why it is major doom and gloom

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Bill1978 said:

Am I missing something from this Spider-Man talk? While it sux that Spider-Man can't appear in an MCU movie and MCU characters can't pop into his world, shouldn't we still be getting the similar Spider-Man movies with Tom Holland (young and humorous etc) after the deal breaks up just without any referencing of Tony Stark (thank God!) or random cameos to remind as he is in the MCU? I am struggling to understand why it is major doom and gloom

It’s more than just losing the extended MCU world and characters. Sony paid for and marketed the Spider-Man movies but the movies themselves were completely Marvel products. Sadly the marketing has been the weakest aspect of the two Spidey movies. Those movie posters were laughable. 

Many fans felt like Marvel was the first to actually get him right and now they will again be stuck with the studio that failed repeatedly. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Guest

[Morrigan2575]

5 hours ago, Dani said:

'Spider-Man' Studio Sony Goes Public with Marvel Movie Divorce: "We Are Disappointed"

Interesting that Sony waited until almost 9pm pacific time to make a statement placing all the blame on Disney. 

I don’t thinking matters who’s to blame. Sony and Spider-Man need Marvel a lot more than Marvel needed them. 

Yep. 

I watched a Midnight's Edge video about this yesterday. They pointed out that the original story came from a Deadline writer with ties to Sony. Basically the Sony email hack revealed that Sony used this particular writer to dump/leak news to when they weren't ready to make an official announcement.  It also makes sense because the original article was super pro-Sony and even mentioned how Rothman spent hours in the editing room perfecting Venom because Fiege's take was flawed (like anyone would believe that).

So yeah, sounds like Sony got high on Venom's BO success and, Into the Spiderverse's critical success and cut ties with Marvel/Disney.  I think they're going to find out the hard way that they can't match the MCU. Warner/DC lost, FOX lost, Sony lost already (with Garfield's spider-man) and they will lose again trying to build on Spider-Man/Venom.

It's a shame because Marvel really got Spider-Man right and he fits in the MCU. On the bright, X-Men and F4 are finally he and can be saved in a few years.

4 hours ago, swanpride said:

It seems like Sony wanted to continue the original deal, but Disney wanted a bigger cut of the money. So for once, it might not be Sony we need to blame there.

Let's wait and see. I don't think the last word is spoken there.

Keep in mind who leaked the information. That came from Sony and of course Sony is going to paint Disney as the bad guys.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Morrigan2575

[Morrigan2575]

1 hour ago, Jeebus Cripes said:

Aw, but if I could just finally see a Cyclops on screen who actually has some semblance to comic Cyclops, that would be swell. Wolverine, I could do without, TBH.

I wouldn't hold my breath on not getting Wolverine. Pretty sure Marvel still shoves him in every comicbook they can manage. As much as I'd love to believe the MCU wouldn't make new X-Men movies the Adventures of Wolverine and those other guys...I'm not holding my breath.

[swanpride]

Oh, I wouldn't put it past Alan Horn that he attempted to get more money out of the situation.

In any case, I think that Sony is now testing the waters, seeing how the fans will react. And then it's back at the negotiation table.

[starri]

27 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I watched a Midnight's Edge video about this yesterday.

FWIW, Midnight's Edge frequently trafficks in click-bait conspiracy theories.  They've put out numerous videos about Star Treks Discovery and Picard that turned out to be utter nonsense if not outright lies.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, swanpride said:

Oh, I wouldn't put it past Alan Horn that he attempted to get more money out of the situation.

In any case, I think that Sony is now testing the waters, seeing how the fans will react. And then it's back at the negotiation table.

The previous deal was ridiculously weighted in favor of Sony. It may have made sense initially because Sony took all the financial risk but Disney would a crazy to agree to the same deal now. Disney probably only agreed originally because they are already had the merchandising rights and they really wanted Spidey for phase 3. 

I saw one person describe it has the original deal being Marvel renting Spider-Man and the current deal is them trying to become partners with Sony. Based on the reports that seems pretty accurate. 

[swanpride]

Also true. The question is if Sony wasn't ready to move at all or if they felt that Disney demanded too much. I can see that a 50/50 deal has them doing the math and thinking "yeah, in this case we get more by making just another venom".

[Guest]

1 minute ago, swanpride said:

Also true. The question is if Sony wasn't ready to move at all or if they felt that Disney demanded too much. I can see that a 50/50 deal has them doing the math and thinking "yeah, in this case we get more by making just another venom".

True. If the deal is truly dead I actually can understand both sides. Sony feeling like they would have to give up too much and Disney realized that they really don’t need to settle at all. 

I agree with you that this is probably Sony trying to gain leverage before continuing to negotiate. They both have a lot to gain by making a deal. 

[swanpride]

Quote

FWIW, Midnight's Edge frequently trafficks in click-bait conspiracy theories.  They've put out numerous videos about Star Treks Discovery and Picard that turned out to be utter nonsense if not outright lies.

Yeah, pretty much. When they started out they were simply collecting news and weighted them based on how believable it was, but nowadays they are peddling to the Anti-SJW and the conspiracy crowd and have gone completely down the rails.

[blueray]

10 minutes ago, Dani said:

True. If the deal is truly dead I actually can understand both sides. Sony feeling like they would have to give up too much and Disney realized that they really don’t need to settle at all. 

I agree with you that this is probably Sony trying to gain leverage before continuing to negotiate. They both have a lot to gain by making a deal. 

That's what I think too. Hopefully they will see the backlash and come to some kind of agreement.

I was thinking about what they could do. Unfortunately there is the mid-credit scene revealing his identy. So that will need to be addressed. But Sony could make a third (and probably final) movie, focusing on a smaller scale. Maybe Peter starts his senior year of high school and there is some sort of villain. They address his identity as being most people simply don't believe it and those who do, know Peter didn't do it.  There will me more focus on the characters from it such as Ned, who will get to be the guy in the chair. They will have to somehow get permission to at least acknowledge past events but not directly reference Tony (at least not his name 😉 ). The one thing that would be helpful is if they some how got the rights to use Happy, as he could help with the identity thing. Maybe Disney would let them as he is a minor character who as no other ties to any of the other characters in the MCU. Assuming this is the case, Sony will use him as a mentor/ally to Peter but the story will remain about the characters from the Spiderman Movies. They keep the cast the same! And this movie serves as the conclusion to this versions story until possible future negotiations happen.

Edited August 21, 2019 by blueray

[Raja]

2 hours ago, Bill1978 said:

Am I missing something from this Spider-Man talk? While it sux that Spider-Man can't appear in an MCU movie and MCU characters can't pop into his world, shouldn't we still be getting the similar Spider-Man movies with Tom Holland (young and humorous etc) after the deal breaks up just without any referencing of Tony Stark (thank God!) or random cameos to remind as he is in the MCU? I am struggling to understand why it is major doom and gloom

The fandom no longer trust independent directors without Kevin Feige guiding the grand story. The random cameos and fan service Easter Eggs was the force multiplier which makes a MCU release the global cultural event that they have become. Even China would not dare to  say one of those movies won't get one of their foreign movie slot

[Morrigan2575]

1 hour ago, starri said:

FWIW, Midnight's Edge frequently trafficks in click-bait conspiracy theories.  They've put out numerous videos about Star Treks Discovery and Picard that turned out to be utter nonsense if not outright lies.

Yes but, in this case they're pretty spot on. 

I do know that ME has some deep/baseless spec at times. I can't even look at a Star Wars video without a couple of pounds of salt but, I do think they're right about Sony not wanting to renew the Disney deal and wanting to use their Spider-Man/Venom-Verse to compete with MCU.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Morrigan2575

[benteen]

I'm not worried.  They'll have a few years to work it out.

Sounds like Marvel Disney got greedy and Sony got arrogant.  I can't exactly cry that Marvel Disney isn't getting a bigger cut of the pie and I can understand Sony not want to give them a 50/50 split (seriously, who would take that deal?!).  At the same time, Sony could probably cut them in for a little more.  Sony needs to realize that Marvel saved their franchise and it was Spider-Man's involvement in the MCU that made him interesting again onscreen.  Have fun making a movie that's not tied to the recent Marvel movie, fellas...

But if what I read is true, it seems like Marvel just decided to be greedy pigs and inexplicably expected Sony to give them a 50/50 split, which is just unrealistic.  If they want Spider-Man back, then they better be willing to pay billions of dollars.

Edited August 21, 2019 by benteen

[Sakura12]

I think it is a mix of greed (Marvel) and arrogance (Sony). The original deal was for Spider-man to appear in 5 movies between Marvel and Sony. Far From Home was number 5. So of course Disney would want to renegotiate the deal after it made 1 billion. While 50% is high it's a negotiation tactic. Come in high and be prepared to settle for less. What it sounds like is Sony just came in with the exact same deal of 5%. Disney is not going to agree to that and they shouldn't. Because if we are being honest Spider-Man did so well because of the MCU connection. The same billion people that saw the other billion dollar MCU movies saw Spider-Man because he's connected to the MCU, not because he belongs to Sony. 

Sony's last 2 attempts at live action Spider-Man started out great and ended poorly. Into the Spider-Verse while a great movie that won an Oscar didn't do much at the box office because it had no MCU connection.  And Venom was a surprise even though I only thought it was an okay movie. I really have no desire to see the second in theaters, I'll wait for it to be on streaming like I did the first one. I do think Sony needs Marvel more than Marvel needs Sony. 

Marvel has 2 other billion dollar hero movies in Black Panther and Captain Marvel, they have a whole bunch of other heroes that can show up in other movies. They will be fine with one loss. They have the X-Men and the Fantastic Four now, they can just say Peter is off being a neighbor hood hero and finishing high school. Sony may lose more from people that will be like what's the point of seeing the next Spider-man if it has no connection to rest of the MCU. Are they just not going to mention the Avengers even though that was a big storyline in both of his movies. Or are they going to recast and start over with the fourth retelling of Spider-man. Which I have no desire in seeing if that's what they do. 

It's the fans that will really lose in all this. Sony needs to be a little more giving, say like 30/70 with 10% of the merchandising sales or something. No matter what Sony thinks, Marvel helped them get that billion. They should get some the credit and profit from the movie. 

[Guest]

I just realized that D23 is in two days. There is no way that’s a coincidence. Well at least it won’t be long before there are more answers. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Guest

[Wynterwolf]

Eh, with how good Into the Spiderverse was, I think Sony has reason to think they are on the right track. But I also have zero investment in Peter Parker being included in the MCU.  

[Raja]

I just see Sony's side. 100% of 700 million is still better than 50% of a billion. End of story. All they really lose character wise is Uncle Happy

[Morrigan2575]

2 hours ago, benteen said:

I'm not worried.  They'll have a few years to work it out.

Huh?  The deal is up with Far From Home.  How do they have a few years to work out a deal?  Any renewal would be now, not in a few years

[Sakura12]

13 minutes ago, Raja said:

I just see Sony's side. 100% of 700 million is still better than 50% of a billion. End of story. All they really lose character wise is Uncle Happy

They had 1 movie make a 800 million, that's not enough to be like I'm the best ever now.  

They won't just lose Happy, they will not be able to mention or show any of the Avengers or about what he did while with the Avengers. When both of his 2 movies was all about wanting to be on the/or being on the Avengers. That's going to be jarring to not hear Peter ever talk about them again. He worked with Beck because of "Fury". Otherwise he would've just let Beck do his thing and enjoyed his vacation. Now that Beck outed him, he's just going to try to solve it himself without calling in a global, I guess universal support system that has access to shapeshifters. Are we supposed to think the Avengers will just abandon him to that mess without offering to help. Yet another Spider-man story worked because he was part of a larger universe. 

Into the Spider Verse was a good movie and won an Oscar but nobody watched it in the theaters. There was no MCU connection so most of the billion dollar MCU audience passed on it. So for me it's Sony need Marvel more than Marvel needs Sony. Marvel can pretend Peter's busy while they have their thousands of other characters to work with. Sony can't really do the same without changing the story quite a bit or making an entirely new Spider-man. 

[Fukui San]

I mean, a good movie could be made without MCU underpinnings and references, but I don't trust Sony to do it due to track record.

[Raja]

Feige might care about a story but does the owner of Sony stock?

[Wynterwolf]

10 minutes ago, Raja said:

Feige might care about a story but does the owner of Sony stock?

Feige doesn't care about story either (side-eye's EG like whoa), it's all only about money, and who gets it.  

[Raja]

1 minute ago, Wynterwolf said:

Feige doesn't care about story either (side-eye's EG like whoa), it's all only about money, and who gets it.  

Of course the MCU gnashing of teeth is all about the thought that Feige does cares about the story where as the Sony producer/director won't. But then Disney went gangsta with 50% demand. Sony was among the saviors of the source comic book company and demands a bit of respect as a competitor in the movie industry.

[Morrigan2575]

27 minutes ago, Raja said:

Of course the MCU gnashing of teeth is all about the thought that Feige does cares about the story where as the Sony producer/director won't. But then Disney went gangsta with 50% demand. Sony was among the saviors of the source comic book company and demands a bit of respect as a competitor in the movie industry.

Assuming that's even true and again we don't know that.  All we know is Deadline claiming a source (most likely from Sony) Deadline Article

Quote

And sources note that Venom was a problem picture and far from the polished product that grossed $856 million worldwide, until Rothman himself spent a good long time in the editing room helping to get it there.

I mean seriously, the "Source" is obviously Rothman or someone working for him...he totes saved Venom after Fiege took a shit on it!!!! 

Also the "demand" wasn't Give me 50%! it was Disney saying let's be 50/50 partners in all things, i.e Disney/Sony would now split the production cost and the profit sharing and, probably marketing costs as well.  It's not like Disney (assuming the message isn't totally slanted) held a gun to Sony's head and said give us 50% of the profit or else!  

The first deal was Sony put up all the production and marketing costs and, held all actor/director contracts. Marvel came up with the story and executed everything (for the 2 stand alone Spider-Man films).  Basically Sony were silent partners, while Marvel did all the work.  In exchange, Marvel got to use Spider-Man in 3 of their movies and, got 5% of the First Dollar Gross on the 2 stand-alone Spider-Man movies.

Personally, I don't think Sony ever planned to renew the deal so, this is just them taking their ball and going home, while pointing their finger at Disney as being big meanies.

As for a Sony/Rothman being able to produce a great Spider-Man movie? I'm not holding my breath, he has an awful reputation with Comic Book/sci-fi movies.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Morrigan2575

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Raja said:

Of course the MCU gnashing of teeth is all about the thought that Feige does cares about the story where as the Sony producer/director won't. But then Disney went gangsta with 50% demand. Sony was among the saviors of the source comic book company and demands a bit of respect as a competitor in the movie industry.

I don’t have a problem with Sony deciding Disney wants to much but I really don’t understand what is so appalling about a 50/50 split of costs and profits. I really doubt that was as low as Disney was willing to go but even if it was it puts the two studios as equals. 

[benteen]

1 hour ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Huh?  The deal is up with Far From Home.  How do they have a few years to work out a deal?  Any renewal would be now, not in a few years

What I mean is it will probably be a few years before Marvel can do another Spider-Man movie anyway and another Avengers movie is not on the horizon.

[Raja]

12 minutes ago, Dani said:

I don’t have a problem with Sony deciding Disney wants to much but I really don’t understand what is so appalling about a 50/50 split of costs and profits. I really doubt that was as low as Disney was willing to go but even if it was it puts the two studios as equals. 

Simple Sony is the owner and can easily produce their own movies as they are also in that business. There is absolutely no reason for an owner to lease something out for 50%

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Raja said:

Simple Sony is the owner and can easily produce their own movies as they are also in that business. There is absolutely no reason for an owner to lease something out for 50%

Yes and that is exactly why Sony is free to say no. That really doesn’t explain why the offer was inherently insulting. What offer wouldn’t have been insulting?

[Sakura12]

Marvel helped Sony get their name back up there after their email scandal. Without them they would probably still be floundering. I think Marvel was generous only taking 5% for the initial deal. Sony could've also asked for a percentage of the Marvel movies Spider-man was in but they didn't because none of them knew how this would turn out so they both low balled their deals. 

It turned out to very profitable so now they both want more. 50/50 is high and Sony said no like they should. But it's a negotiation which means Sony has to counter with another deal and not the exact same one. No one goes to their boss for a raise and asks for the same salary they are already making. You ask for more than you need, they offer less than that and you meet somewhere in the middle. 

Would Spider-man have done well without Marvel, probably. Spider-Man is a popular character. Would it have made a billion, no. Look at Batman and Superman, both really popular heroes and their movies couldn't hit a billion. Saying no the 50/50 is the right call, not having a counter is where Sony is screwing up. Or if they did offer a different counter they are not saying it and is going to make them look bad in the long run. Because right now it looks Disney came in with 50/50, Sony said no and walked out of the room. Is their tactic to wait for Disney to relent instead of making an offer that can benefit them more than Disney? 

[Danny Franks]

Incredibly disappointing move from Sony, and one that I think will bite them in the arse, somewhere down the line. They overplayed their hand, and said 'no thanks' to any more of the MCU cachet and the MCU money.

Whatever they do with Spider-Man now, it will be tinged with the bitterness that fans feel after seeing how much fun Spider-Man was in the MCU.

They really think their vision of a Spider-Verse is ever going to come to satisfactory fruition? Come off it. They'll blow it, just as they blew the last two iterations of Spider-Man. I don't know if it's been clarified yet whether Tom Holland has fulfilled his five picture contract to play Spider-Man, but if he has Sony will need to renegotiate with him if they want to make a third standalone movie.

I don't really care about the finances of it, or the fairness of the deal. As a fan, this makes me think I want nothing to do with yet another inevitable reboot of the character. I doubt I'm the only one.

[swanpride]

Honestly, even if they would manage to built some sort of Spider-Man franchise, it would still be a loss for them. Because they could do both. Or even three things. They could have one Spider-Man in the MCU, they could have their animated version (and weren't Disney and Sony agreeing on doing some sort of TV show together?) and they could built a live action world around ANY Spider-Man as long as he (or she) isn't called Peter Parker.

[Dandesun]

I wonder what this means for the Spiderman they have at California Adventure? Or if it affects that at all. Sony just has movie right, correct? Because Disney is building a Spiderman ride at CA that will be part of the new Marvel land section (they can't build it in Florida because Universal has a ride there.)

Man, the Marvel bankruptcy in the 90s has resulted in shit just as complicated as some of their storylines.

[Morrigan2575]

1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

Tom Holland has fulfilled his five picture contract to play Spider-Man, but if he has Sony will need to renegotiate with him if they want to make a third standalone movie.

Tom Holland was signed for 6 movies and the MCU deal was only for 5 movies.  It's why there's a lot of speculation that Sony always intended to end the Disney deal after Far From Home, provided Venom did well (Which it did).  If Venom bombed Sony would have (most likely) used the final movie on Holland's contract to extend the Disney deal.

[Danny Franks]

10 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Tom Holland was signed for 6 movies and the MCU deal was only for 5 movies.  It's why there's a lot of speculation that Sony always intended to end the Disney deal after Far From Home, provided Venom did well (Which it did).  If Venom bombed Sony would have (most likely) used the final movie on Holland's contract to extend the Disney deal.

Foolish of them, in my point of view. They have a pretty terrible track record of being able to maintain standards across sequels. There is absolutely no reason to believe they're capable of creating a successful and sustained franchise.

The tonal dissonance between their Spider-Man movies and Venom makes their chances of succeeding even more remote. The movies have absolutely nothing in common, including Spider-Man, as their movie symbiote has no connection to him at all.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Dandesun said:

I wonder what this means for the Spiderman they have at California Adventure? Or if it affects that at all. Sony just has movie right, correct? Because Disney is building a Spiderman ride at CA that will be part of the new Marvel land section (they can't build it in Florida because Universal has a ride there.)

Man, the Marvel bankruptcy in the 90s has resulted in shit just as complicated as some of their storylines.

Marvel sold the theme park rights to Universal before it sold Spider-Man to Sony. Disney got the characters back west of the Mississippi so nothing changes for Disneyland. Crazy side note Disneyland’s new land doesn’t have an official name yet because Disney can’t use the name Marvel in US theme parks. 

[Dandesun]

11 minutes ago, Dani said:

Marvel sold the theme park rights to Universal before it sold Spider-Man to Sony. Disney got the characters back west of the Mississippi so nothing changes for Disneyland. Crazy side note Disneyland’s new land doesn’t have an official name yet because Disney can’t use the name Marvel in US theme parks. 

Yes, I remember wondering what was going to come of the whole thing way back when Disney bought Marvel. Islands of Adventure over at Universal was still new which tells you how long ago that was.

As for not being able to call it Marvel Land... that's kind of hilarious. I mean, that's what everyone's calling it so whatever name they dream up is almost moot. There's a big wall around the construction (and has been for awhile) with the Stark Industries logo on it which isn't likely to go away even though Tony's dead. They had Stark Expo over in Tomorrowland with a bunch of Marvel 'artifacts' and I think some of that is still there (including Thor) but over at CA they've got a big shield thing where you can meet Cap and Dr. Strange (weirdly) and across from that they've got 'New York' which is where Spidey hangs out. And then they've got Carol over by a plane jutting out of a 'hangar' with a SHIELD logo on it. And then right down the street is the Guardians of the Galaxy ride. Suffice to say, it's a real mish-mash over there and I continually wonder what that area is going to end up being. It's been going through a bit of a identity crisis for a while.

I don't see Disney giving up Spidey at the parks because he's still a big seller merchandise wise so I wonder how THAT works out with the Sony stuff, too.

You know what they DON'T sell over at the Disney parks? A baseball hat with the SHIELD logo on it. That seems a no brainer. (They do sell sweatshirts with Cap's shield on it in sequins. Which I own and I am not ashamed.)

Edited August 21, 2019 by Dandesun

[starri]

The theme park rights are kind of a mess, but basically they can use the Marvel characters west of the Mississippi and at their international parks.  As @Dani points out, they can't use the Marvel name in Anaheim or Orlando, but can internationally.  Orlando is allowed to use characters that aren't depicted at Islands of Adventure, which is why Epcot is getting a Guardians of the Galaxy ride and possibly something featuring Dr. Strange.

[Bruinsfan]

For that last they could just strap you into a seat that injects you with LSD.

[Matt K]

4 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Personally, I don't think Sony ever planned to renew the deal so, this is just them taking their ball and going home, while pointing their finger at Disney as being big meanies.

That seems to be correct.  I mentioned this months ago but word from the Sony execs was there was never going to be a deal.  As for the 50/50 split, the article I read said this was Disney's initial offer and Sony refused to even counter it.  I don't think its fair (as some commenters have said, not you)  to call Disney greedy here when this was their initial offer.  I could call an offer greedy if it was Disney's final offer but opening offers are always a little greedy.  So I'd put the entire "blame" on Sony.  

As for Tom Holland appearing in the other Sony movies (Venom 2, Mobius) it would be somewhat unlikely sine Tom Holland is only under contract for 1 more movie.  So if they want to make Spiderman 3, then those appearance would require a separate contract (for probably a good deal more money).  That said they could wrap up Holland's appearances in Venom 2 and then start over with a new Spiderman further down the road.

[Dandesun]

50 minutes ago, Bruinsfan said:

For that last they could just strap you into a seat that injects you with LSD.

And then just put you on ANY OTHER RIDE. Can you imagine going on the Pooh rides tripping on acid? Or going to see the Country Bear Jamboree? Or Small World? Or Haunted Mansion?

Madness of the Multiverse. All right there.

[swanpride]

Just call it "hero land". See, done.

I somehow doubt that Sony would even be allowed to use Tom Holland in a movie not made by Marvel studios. I just can't imagine that the contract wasn't clear about that particular point.

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, swanpride said:

Just call it "hero land". See, done.

I somehow doubt that Sony would even be allowed to use Tom Holland in a movie not made by Marvel studios. I just can't imagine that the contract wasn't clear about that particular point.

The Deadline story says that Sony already has two more movies with Holland and Jon Watts leading most to assume that they can use Holland. I’m doubtful. 

Poor Tom Holland is set it appear at a convention this weekend. If he goes it will be awkward. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Guest

[starri]

1 hour ago, swanpride said:

Just call it "hero land". See, done.

Avengers Alley was being tossed around for a bit.  I hope it was tossed in the trash.

Fun bit of trivia, the theme park attractions take place in the Marvel Theme Park Universe, which is distinct from the MCU.

[Dandesun]

1 minute ago, starri said:

Avengers Alley was being tossed around for a bit.  I hope it was tossed in the trash.

Fun bit of trivia, the theme park attractions take place in the Marvel Theme Park Universe, which is distinct from the MCU.

I am ASHAMED that I didn't know there was yet another part of the multiverse specifically for the theme parks. But it does explain a few things and it will also explain how Tony is still around doing the cruise ship fireworks on Avengers at Sea.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, starri said:

Avengers Alley was being tossed around for a bit.  I hope it was tossed in the trash.

Fun bit of trivia, the theme park attractions take place in the Marvel Theme Park Universe, which is distinct from the MCU.

I love all those little details. I also love that Disney has made a version of the Daily Bugle for California Adventure. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Sakura12 said:

Marvel helped Sony get their name back up there after their email scandal. Without them they would probably still be floundering. I think Marvel was generous only taking 5% for the initial deal. Sony could've also asked for a percentage of the Marvel movies Spider-man was in but they didn't because none of them knew how this would turn out so they both low balled their deals. 

It turned out to very profitable so now they both want more. 50/50 is high and Sony said no like they should. But it's a negotiation which means Sony has to counter with another deal and not the exact same one. No one goes to their boss for a raise and asks for the same salary they are already making. You ask for more than you need, they offer less than that and you meet somewhere in the middle. 

Would Spider-man have done well without Marvel, probably. Spider-Man is a popular character. Would it have made a billion, no. Look at Batman and Superman, both really popular heroes and their movies couldn't hit a billion. Saying no the 50/50 is the right call, not having a counter is where Sony is screwing up. Or if they did offer a different counter they are not saying it and is going to make them look bad in the long run. Because right now it looks Disney came in with 50/50, Sony said no and walked out of the room. Is their tactic to wait for Disney to relent instead of making an offer that can benefit them more than Disney? 

Hollywood Reporter  now has more details. They say Disney’s minimum was 30% and that both studios were emboldened by Far From Home’s success making them feel they no longer needed the other. This version feels more balanced and is probably closer to the truth than anything else that has come out. 

[Morrigan2575]

A 70/30 split doesn't seem the least bit unreasonable of a deal. Sony got greedy and, now they need to do something to prove they aren't going to fuck over Spider-Man...again. 

Disney/MCU really won't suffer or care over the loss of Spider-Man (financially) other than really wanting all of their toys back home.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Morrigan2575