I think they're just pulling an Eric Berry and bringing the public into the negotiating table. After Far From Home and the plan for Spidey to be Iron Man's heir apparent Sony has more leverage than they've had for a long time... especially if Disney wants half of the profits. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chiefspants:
I think they're just pulling an Eric Berry and bringing the public into the negotiating table. After Far From Home and the plan for Spidey to be Iron Man's heir apparent Sony has more leverage than they've had for a long time... especially if Disney wants half of the profits.
and not just half of Spider-man, they alledgedly wanted half of Venom, Kraven, Morbius and any other movie that involves Spider-man characters as well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat:
and not just half of Spider-man, they alledgedly wanted half of Venom, Kraven, Morbius and any other movie that involves Spider-man characters as well.
Yea but didn't they also offer to put money in thus taking a risk as well? Where as with the last 2 they were Sony funded so Marvel had no risk. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
Yea but didn't they also offer to put money in thus taking a risk as well? Where as with the last 2 they were Sony funded so Marvel had no risk.
Yeah, I was about to point this out. They want a 50/50 co-production, so they'd be paying half the budget as well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
Yea but didn't they also offer to put money in thus taking a risk as well? Where as with the last 2 they were Sony funded so Marvel had no risk.
Disney had no risk but also only got 5%. Now Disney wants 50% of the risk for 50% of the profit. If you take a movie like Venom and put the Disney deal in place, then Sony loses hundreds of millions. [Reply]
Originally Posted by :
Disney asked that future Spider-Man films be a 50/50 co-financing arrangement between the studios, and there were discussions that this might extend to other films in the Spider-Man universe. Sony turned that offer down flat. Sources said that Sony, led by Tom Rothman and Tony Vinciquerra, came back with other configurations, but Disney didn’t want to do that. But Sony did not want to share its biggest franchise. Sure Disney would be putting up half the funding, but the risk is in how much you are going to make back in profit. Disney wasn’t at all interested in continuing the current terms where Marvel receives in the range of 5% of first dollar gross, sources said.
If Sony is building their own 'Spider-verse', I can see why they wouldn't want to give half of that money to Disney. [Reply]
There's just too much money in these MCU Spider-Man films for this to fully die. Surely they'll work out a deal.
They're going to have to do a hell of a heel-turn, though, narratively, if Spidey is gone. It was clear in Far From Home that they were setting him up to be the central figure of the MCU going forward.
I think the central Stark/Cap/Thor trio was planned, in phase 4, to be replaced by Spidey/T'Challa/Danvers. I *think*.
But make no mistake -- and this is where I disagree with DJLN -- the MCU is going to continue printing money. Thor 4 will rake it in. Strange 2 will rake it in. Black Panther 2 will rake it in. Captain Marvel 2 will rake it in. GOTG 3 will rake it in. They'll keep dipping their toes into new properties, and keep trying new stuff. Some of it will sink (like, relatively, the Ant-Man movies) and some of it will strike gold. And the machine will churn on.
But narratively, the entire MCU benefits sooooooo much from Tom Holland's Spidey, and both companies make stupid money off of him. There's no way they're going to just bury him without milking him Stark-style for another 5 movies. [Reply]
The thing I think may harm the MCU's longterm profit margin are the Disney series with Loki, WandaVision, and Falcon/Bucky.
With those shows ongoing featuring central characters, the maintenance of having to keep up with the MCU is going to increase. I think one of the reasons the MCU has thrived is because they come out basically twice a year, which (a.) forces fans to wait, but more importantly (b.) makes keeping up with the MCU low-effort. [Reply]
There's enough money to go around. I liked it better when Spiderman was separate from the MCU; the whole Tony Stark/Spiderman thing doesn't feel right to me. The character is interesting enough without needing Tony Stark. Deadpool seems to be doing fine on his own and they managed to tank the X-Men. I can see separate worlds where each can exist and do fine.
Tony/Steve/Thor were my main interests. Natasha/Hawkey/Hulk/etc. are nice sidekicks.
I'm a bit overloaded and the PG-13 ratings are having trouble holding my interest. [Reply]
It'd be funny if Tom Holland didn't sign on to be Spiderman anymore due to this and Sony had to recast Spiderman yet again, and fall on their faces with the fans. [Reply]
In the good news, this separation means I will never have to endure another minute of Venom. What a crap movie that was. Now if we can somehow cut Deadpool out the MCU will be nearly perfect. [Reply]