Homecoming All the technical details of this deal

[XtremelyBaneful]

After IGN's report was posted, other articles - which referenced the same articles that were sourced by IGN - also mentioned that Feige would not be financially compensated for his work on the 2017 film.

that doesn't mean anything though if those articles' source is the article & the points in it being discussed in it in the first place

 

[DigificWriter]

^ As Zarex pointed out, neither of the articles sourced by IGN or the other outlets mentioned Feige not being financially compensated for his work on the 2017 film, yet the IGN article and other articles (none of which sourced the IGN report directly) all did make mention of said detail.

 

[Angryfantasyfan]

When it comes to movie studios, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety are much more trusted sites than IGN.

 

[Knight_SV]

Why everyone seems pessimistic now?

 

[Webhead2006]

Really digic I can't really see marvel making the deal with sony and not having a firm hand in story look and direction that any solo films go. They would not want sony to do this or that with the character. That doesn't jive with how marvel wants story to go. Or have things not work with mcu. No way they will let's sony be all willy nilly with the character. And muck up with how mcu been brought up.

I still say all there original spin off plans are dead not going to happen at all. And they will Judy focus on the new solo films and let marvel handle the creative end. And sony pretty much just signing off on there call and footing the production costs. With sony reaping the marvel touch. And marvel reaping on merch sales.

And like I said last night if sony wants to get all whacky withvspidey. Do it in the animate film or potential animated film. Series. Since there they don't have to have marvel in on the deal. So do what ever there.

As for feige thing I do recall he will be paid but more in standard producer pay rate or something along that lines.

 

[DigificWriter]

Every specific nitty-gritty detail I have outlined as being part of this deal was first reported on by IGN, and subsequently reported on by other sites as well. Each of these subsequent reports included the exact same details that were in IGN's report, and yet none of them cited the IGN article as a source. When nearly every article outlining the nitty-gritty details of this arrangement mentions the same things without sourcing one another, it becomes pretty obvious that every bit of what's being reported is factual.

 

[Webhead2006]

It might be factual but could still not have all the details revealed.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ What more is there to reveal regarding the status of Sony spin-off projects that, as of now, won't have Kevin Feige's involvement and the issue of whether or not Feige will be monetarily compensated for his work on Sony's 2017 Spider-Man film? Those kinds of details are pretty straightforward.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Sony being able to use Marvel characters wasn't even part of the original deal, so we probably won't find out what happens if Sony uses Marvel characters in their movies until/unless it actually happens.

As far as the original deal goes, I think it bears repeating that Sony is the studio to get more immediately tangible benefits out of the arrangement because the ways in which they profit from it are far more direct than the ways in which Marvel profits from it.

I agree that Sony gets better financial benefits from the deal. My understanding is Marvel's benefits are about creative use and effective creative control over the character. The thing you're leaving out is Sony only gets those financial benefits if the movie is successful and they clearly believe that Kevin Feige is the key to that success (which means they would have to defer to him on creative decisions)*. So this Spider-Man movie seems to be something Marvel with have their creative fingerprints all over.

I do agree that sequels are up in the air (I think the success or failure of this film will determine their future working relationship) and it's clear that spinoffs are Sony's alone (although I think they're using animated films as their way to use the Spider-Man IP right now). I also agree that the only financial benefit Marvel gets is through merchandise. But I think most people are debating creative control (I would argue de facto creative control, not de jure creative control), not finances.

* In fact, the whole fact that Feige isn't being paid seems to incorporate an implicit understanding that his salary at Marvel is covering this job. People don't work for free. The fact that Marvel's schedule was shifted for Spider-Man also reinforces this idea because, even though it's financed by Sony, it is incorporated into the flow of Marvel production (Feige isn't going to have to work overtime to get both a Marvel film and this film out at the same time).

 

[DigificWriter]

Most of the arguments I've heard on this center on Sony basically being hands-off and letting Marvel dictate the entire creative direction of the 2017 film, which simply does not make sense within the specifics of the deal as outlined.

What is far more likely to be the case is that Feige and Sony will be listening to and working with one another to create something that is narratively beneficial for both Sony's IP and the MCU.

IOW, Feige will be a collaborator on the film, not a dictator .

 

[Frodo]

Most of the arguments I've heard on this center on Sony basically being hands-off and letting Marvel dictate the entire creative direction of the 2017 film, which simply does not make sense within the specifics of the deal as outlined.

What is far more likely to be the case is that Feige and Sony will be listening to and working with one another to create something that is narratively beneficial for both Sony's IP and the MCU.

IOW, Feige will be a collaborator on the film, not a dictator .

True. Fans would love for Feige to be in total control and for Sony to just fade away , but that's wishful thinking. It aint gonna happen, and Sony wouldn't have agreed to the deal to begin with if that were the case.

Sony still owns the character whether fans like it or not, and until Disney acquires Sony, or Sony gives up the character, both sides are going to have to work together .

 

[Mike Murdock]

The thing that's left out of that argument is why does Sony want Feige in the first place. My suggestion is they want Feige because they think he can deliver the same quality of film as he does with the Marvel films. That means they believe he can do a better job than they can. To me, that suggests they are giving him creative control.

Absolutely, it's a collaborative process and Sony has ultimate final say, but it doesn't make sense that they would approach this thinking they'll be directing how this thing goes. If they did that, they wouldn't have sought out a partnership with Marvel. Particularly, because if the deal goes south, Marvel still got what they wanted (Spider-Man in Civil War) but Sony still wouldn't have their movie. It's not like they get anything without Feige, after all. As you pointed out, they aren't getting any Marvel characters. If they interfere to the point that Feige walks from the project, they get nothing from this deal.

 

[Frodo]

The thing that's left out of that argument is why does Sony want Feige in the first place. My suggestion is they want Feige because they think he can deliver the same quality of film as he does with the Marvel films. That means they believe he can do a better job than they can. To me, that suggests they are giving him creative control.

Absolutely, it's a collaborative process and Sony has ultimate final say, but it doesn't make sense that they would approach this thinking they'll be directing how this thing goes. If they did that, they wouldn't have sought out a partnership with Marvel. Particularly, because if the deal goes south, Marvel still got what they wanted (Spider-Man in Civil War) but Sony still wouldn't have their movie. It's not like they get anything without Feige, after all. As you pointed out, they aren't getting any Marvel characters. If they interfere to the point that Feige walks from the project, they get nothing from this deal.

They're given him control to an extent. Sony has the final word so its not like Feige can do anything he wants. They want Feige on board because of what he contributes but they are by no means giving up all creative control. They're a difference between giving someone a vast amount of leeway and giving them total control without accountability. Its a partnership, so the idea that Sony is giving all control to Feige, which is what fans have argued, is simply not the case.

Yes , they want Feige and they think that he can help them get their franchise off the ground. But make no mistake, if they don't like ideas that Feige has, or proposed directions to take the character, they aren't beholden to allow Marvel to do it. They can veto it , regardless of the wisdom of that type decision. No , I wouldn't be smart or wise, but they have the power to do because Marvel is leasing the character from Sony. Until they own it, Sony still has the final word and veto power in terms of how their character is handled.

 

[DigificWriter]

Frodo gets it.... at least as far as Sony's end of things goes.

Marvel Studios does get to use the character pretty much no-strings-attached for Civil War and potentially other films, but they're not going to paint Sony into a corner narratively ecause they really don't have the leverage to do so.

It's also worth pointing out that, were this deal to somehow go sour, it's Marvel who would suffer the most because they would lose their access to Spider-Man and the merchandising revenue associated with him.

 

[Mike Murdock]

They're given him control to an extent. Sony has the final word so its not like Feige can do anything he wants. They want Feige on board because of what he contributes but they are by no means giving up all creative control. They're a difference between giving someone a vast amount of leeway and giving them total control without accountability. Its a partnership, so the idea that Sony is giving all control to Feige, which is what fans have argued, is simply not the case.

Yes , they want Feige and they think that he can help them get their franchise off the ground. But make no mistake, if they don't like ideas that Feige has, or proposed directions to take the character, they aren't beholden to allow Marvel to do it. They can veto it , regardless of the wisdom of that type decision. No , I wouldn't be smart or wise, but they have the power to do because Marvel is leasing the character from Sony. Until they own it, Sony still has the final word and veto power in terms of how their character is handled.

I agree they can. But it isn't a question of if they can, it's a question of if they will.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of ideas could get vetoed. If they want to kill of Spider-Man, Sony would obviously veto that. I strongly suspect they'd veto him revealing his identity. But it's a long way from that to suggest micromanaging or suggesting alternatives - particularly because they don't really have any direct way to change a scene besides fire their producer (Feige). If they do that, they're back to square one and it's not like the threat is all that serious from Feige's point of view. After all, he's not getting paid anyway.

 

[Webhead2006]

All I am getting at is we still don't know everything. And on spinoff case as I said the other day. I still bet all of there original ideas are done not going to happen. And sony will leave solo live action spidey in marvel hands creatively speaking. And the solo be that focus on this new mcu spidey. And there is no need for crazy spin offs at this point.

If they want to use any of there original ideas they had before the deal. Do it with the animated film. And be all whacky here.

As for control of the rights. In my opinion. I couldn't see just one company over another having the total control of things. If that was the case. Come on no way marvel would let sony run things without there say and there input. They wouldn't want sony to muck up mcu and have a look and story that goes against what mcu is. Same which sony of course wouldn't want marvel to have all the say either.

but looking at this creatively and money wise. Sony would be dumb as heck to not let marvel handle the tone story and direction creatively. Since marvel I'd the magic brand. And pretty much letting marvel run the ship sort of speak would pretty much guarantee sony having a financial successful film.

 

[DigificWriter]

I thought sony still has creative control of the solo spiderman movies

They do.

 

[Webhead2006]

What ever happens I just hope both sony and marvel get all they want. And sony doesn't make any stupid calls or try to micro manage the film. Which is stuff that lead asm series a stray.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

They do.

with feige being on board one could argue marvel's got some creative control as well.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

with feige being on board one could argue marvel's got some creative control as well.

Agreed, some people in this thread need to read between the lines

why would sony even agree to this deal if they had no intention of listening to marvel's advice? Why not just continue with their slate of films? Did they think they could just partner up with Marvel strictly for brand rehabilitation but continue to make decisions on their own? The same decisions that put them in the position they were in after TASM2?

Sure, Sony has the final say on all creative decisions, but they were also pretty aware of the fact that audience didn't like what they what Sony was giving.

Sony would've been dumb to reject marvel's creative direction for the character, and Marvel would've been even dumber for agreeing to a deal where Sony has the bulk of creative pull that would not only further jeopardize the spider-man brand, but the cinematic universe that Marvel has spent almost a decade building.

Sure we are aware of what is said in press releases, sony has full control over everything in the end, blah blah blah. But you can bet your ass that they'll be listening to every word of advice that Marvel gives to them like its sacred gospel.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Agreed, some people in this thread need to read between the lines

why would sony even agree to this deal if they had no intention of listening to marvel's advice? Why not just continue with their slate of films? Did they think they could just partner up with Marvel just for brand rehabilitation but continue to make decisions on their own? The same decisions that put them in the position they were in after TASM2?

Sure, Sony has the final say on all creative decisions, but they were also pretty aware of the fact that audiences didn't like what they were given.

Sony would've been dumb to reject marvel's creative direction for the character, and Marvel would've been even dumber for agreeing to a deal where Sony has creative say that would not only further jeopardize the spider-man brand, but the cinematic universe that Marvel has spent almost a decade building.

Sure we are aware of what is said in press releases, sony has full control over everything in the end, blah blah blah. But you can bet your ass that they'll be listening to every word of advice that Marvel gives to them like its sacred gospel.

why are you asking me? i don't disagree with this.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

why are you asking me? i don't disagree with this.

I was agreeing with you, as mentioned in the first sentence of my post.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I was agreeing with you, as mentioned in the first sentence of my post.

ohh, man. my bad. i missed it

 

[Webhead2006]

Chip you got some good views. And that is how I feel. Sony of they didn't want marvel hell. Could have gone on with asm 3 and there crazy spinoff plans. As I said sony would be fools to not let marvel handle the direction tone and story. Look at all the success marvel as done. Heck they made a dam talking tree and raccoon hits to the masses. And marvel wouldn't make a deal where they don't have at least 50% say or control in things. Since they took the time and care to build up the mcu all these yrs. And wouldn't want sony to bring it down on them or have a conflicting story or not jive with how mcu is.

 

[DigificWriter]

It flies in the face of logic for Sony to have negotiated a deal whereby they retain full ownership of the Spider-Man IP, only to turn around and cede creative control of that IP to Marvel Studios when it comes to telling stories with said IP in live-action.