Homecoming All the technical details of this deal

[DigificWriter]

I was only getting at with spidey in the mcu now. It would be ideal be ideal to have the marvel studios logo on it. And I am sure again sony would want the buzz and the marketing angle of the ms on the film. To help gain more general audience viewers.

You clearly have no clue whatsoever about how film production actually works.

Production companies and film studios do not put their logos on movies to generate "buzz". A production company and/or film studio puts their logo on a movie because they had some actual involvement with and investment in its production.

 

[Webhead2006]

Actually I do man. I was just saying "ifs" and possibly stuff. You don't have to be so negative or shoot down folks views or thoughts.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Why should a studio that has nothing whatsoever to do with the production of a film receive a production credit on said film?

Marvel Studios should only get a production credit on the 2017 film if Sony gets a production credit on Civil War.

Does Marvel Studios's logo look different from the regular Marvel logo they use in opening credit scenes? That logo has appeared in all properties created by Marvel and would likely appear here.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

Why should a studio that has nothing whatsoever to do with the production of a film receive a production credit on said film?

Marvel Studios should only get a production credit on the 2017 film if Sony gets a production credit on Civil War.

*shortened but mostly straightly quoted from the original article from Marvel's own web site*
"Spider-man 2017 will be co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel and Amy Pascal"

Marvel Studios has a lot to do with Spider-man 2017, THAT is just a fact. And Civil War isn't co-produced by Amy Pascal, Rothman, or anyone from Sony so your comparison falls quite flat.

And you said to Webhead2006 that he "clearly knows nothing about how production companies work". What makes you so educated in the inner workings of a movie production company? Have you worked in one? How can you be certain that an exception couldn't be made? This deal is already kinda exceptional, and it's not a dumb idea to create buzz with a popular brand, so if Marvel gave their blessing, why wouldn't Sony be free to use a Marvel logo on top of the title?

 

[CaptainWagner]

I assert these things as facts because they ARE facts, even if you don't think they make logical sense.

You and others are seriously starting to remind me of the hardline political pundits who look at hard scientific data detailing the very real dangers of climate change and yet somehow come away thinking that climate change doesn't exist.

You have not seen the actual deal. None of us have seen the actual deal. None of us know for sure what the "facts" are. But if you want something as close to a "fact" as you can get, look no further than the quote Wall rawer just posted. There's some facts for you.

 

[Zarex]

*shortened but mostly straightly quoted from the original article from Marvel's own web site*
"Spider-man 2017 will be co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel and Amy Pascal"

Marvel Studios has a lot to do with Spider-man 2017, THAT is just a fact. And Civil War isn't co-produced by Amy Pascal, Rothman, or anyone from Sony so your comparison falls quite flat.

And you said to Webhead2006 that he "clearly knows nothing about how production companies work". What makes you so educated in the inner workings of a movie production company? Have you worked in one? How can you be certain that an exception couldn't be made? This deal is already kinda exceptional, and it's not a dumb idea to create buzz with a popular brand, so if Marvel gave their blessing, why wouldn't Sony be free to use a Marvel logo on top of the title?

Yeah, I think there is about a 99.99% chance that the Marvel Studios logo and fanfare is going to be shown before the Sony solo outings. If you were Rothman and Pascal, wouldn't you insist it be there?

 

[DigificWriter]

Does Marvel Studios's logo look different from the regular Marvel logo they use in opening credit scenes?

Yes.

That logo has appeared in all properties created by Marvel and would likely appear here.

Agreed. As I said earlier, there will be a Marvel logo on this movie; it just won't be the Marvel Studios one.

*shortened but mostly straightly quoted from the original article from Marvel's own web site*
"Spider-man 2017 will be co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel and Amy Pascal"

Subsequent reporting made it clear that Marvel Studios the corporate entity does not have any involvement in the 2017 film, regardless of the wording in the press release.

Marvel Studios has a lot to do with Spider-man 2017, THAT is just a fact.

No, it isn't.

And Civil War isn't co-produced by Amy Pascal, Rothman, or anyone from Sony so your comparison falls quite flat.

Kevin Feige THE MAN is co-producing the 2017 film; Marvel Studios THE CORPORATE ENTITY is not. If Marvel Studios THE CORPORATE ENTITY gets to put their logo on a film they have no involvement in, the inverse should apply and Sony THE CORPORATE ENTITY should get to put their logo on a film they have no involvement in.

You have not seen the actual deal. None of us have seen the actual deal. None of us know for sure what the "facts" are.

We know what the facts are because they were reported on by multiple news sources.

I think there is about a 00.000001% chance that the Marvel Studios logo and fanfare is going to be shown before the Sony solo outings.

Fixed that for you.

If you were Rothman and Pascal, wouldn't you insist it be there?

No.

 

[Zarex]

Subsequent reporting made it clear that Marvel Studios the corporate entity does not have any involvement in the 2017 film, regardless of the wording in the press release.

So you are choosing to believe secondary and tertiary sources over a primary source, a document directly signed off by the two parties involved?

Kevin Feige THE MAN is co-producing the 2017 film; Marvel Studios THE CORPORATE ENTITY is not. If Marvel Studios THE CORPORATE ENTITY gets to put their logo on a film they have no involvement in, the inverse should apply and Sony THE CORPORATE ENTITY should get to put their logo on a film they have no involvement in.

So who exactly do you believe make up the team of experts referenced in the press release? Kevin Feige's chauffer and dog walker?

Fixed that for you.

Don't do that. It is my opinion the Marvel Studios logo and fanfare will be playing before "Spider Man :The New Avenger" to show MARVEL STUDIOS involvement in the production as well as signal Spidey's entrance into the MCU. I am entitled to that opinion. You are equally entitled to continue believing that Sony pulled a fast one on Marvel.

 

[Spiderine]

Does Marvel Studios's logo look different from the regular Marvel logo they use in opening credit scenes? That logo has appeared in all properties created by Marvel and would likely appear here.

Actually they are different from the logos that appear with Sony/Fox films.

 

[Spiderine]

Its supposed to be a collaborative effort from both studios on the production while Sony maintains financial backing and distribution on the film. Feige is working on behalf of Marvel Studios in helping produce the film with final approval by Sony. Just as Sony will be informed of what they will do with the character in the MCU appearances.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Actually they are different from the logos that appear with Sony/Fox films.

But it's still the Marvel logo. Which is why Digific's argument is simply ridiculous.

 

[DigificWriter]

So you are choosing to believe secondary and tertiary sources over a primary source, a document directly signed off by the two parties involved?

The press release didn't give any of the specific details that the follow-up reports from multiple entertainment news entities did. That's why I look at the contents of those reports moreso than what was in the press release because those subsequent reports clarify the situation.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

Subsequent reporting made it clear that Marvel Studios the corporate entity does not have any involvement in the 2017 film, regardless of the wording in the press release.

what subsequent reporting? I referenced an article from Marvel's official web site, what more legit source do you possibly have to offer?

No, it isn't.

If Kevin Feige, the main producer of marvel studios, and his TEAM at marvel studios is producing, you're still saying that the movie has nothing to with Marvel Studios? your argument stands on nothing. For a guy who claims that you argue with cold hard facts, you sure like to step around them when it's convenient. How would you define Marvel Studios being involved? If a little less than half of the staff in Marvel Studios worked on Spider-man 2017, you would still probably state that "yeah but Marvel Studios has nothing to do with it". a production company is made of people, and if a main producer and a team of people from the company are involved, so is the company

and you ignored the rest of my post. probably because you don't have a decent argument against that. you don't know any more about movie production's inner workings than any of us. And while we are only suggesting "this MIGHT be possible" you are stating that "no, x and y are not possible at all"

 

[DigificWriter]

But it's still the Marvel logo. Which is why Digific's argument is simply ridiculous.

I've never actually said that the film itself won't have a Marvel logo attached to it. Quite the contrary; I've acknowledged that there will be a Marvel logo on the front of the movie; it just won't be the Marvel Studios logo.

I do stand by my statement that Sony won't put the term "Marvel's" in the title of the movie or attach a Marvel logo to said title, though.

what subsequent reporting? I referenced an article from Marvel's official web site, what more legit source do you possibly have to offer?

#1:
Spider-Man: How Sony, Marvel Will Benefit from Unique Deal

#2:
The Weird Specifics Of Marvel And Sony's Secret Spider-Man Deal

#3:
With Marvel Deal, Sony Opts to Lease Rather Than Sell Spider-Man

#4:
Surprising Details on How Little the Spider-Man Deal Cost; Also: Casting Age Range and Spin-Offs

#5:
IT COST MARVEL ZERO DOLLARS TO GET SPIDER-MAN

 

[Spiderine]

But it's still the Marvel logo. Which is why Digific's argument is simply ridiculous.

I don't think he's arguing that they aren't Marvel properties, he's arguing that Marvel Studios, the one that's making and producing MCU films, won't get a production credit on Spiderman. I don't see how that could possibly be true when they are collaborating on the making of this film.

 

[CaptainWagner]

How are your interpretations of those sources more reliable than Marvel's own site?

 

[DigificWriter]

How are your interpretations of those sources more reliable than Marvel's own site?

Marvel's press release doesn't go into the specifics of the deal, whereas the articles from Variety, THR, etc. do, shedding light on and clarifying what was said in the official press release. It's no different from any other news agency clarifying and publishing specific and more in-depth details about, say, a press conference held by the police or a mayor concerning a shooting or some other kind of incident.

I don't think he's arguing that they aren't Marvel properties, he's arguing that Marvel Studios, the one that's making and producing MCU films, won't get a production credit on Spiderman. I don't see how that could possibly be true when they are collaborating on the making of this film.

Kevin Feige is collaborating with Sony on the making of this film; Marvel Studios, as a corporate entity, is not.

That's the distinction that I'm drawing and no-one else is, and it's a distinction that each of the articles I linked to above are quite clear on.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Coming in 2017......

Spoiler

'Sony and Marvel's (And by Marvel we mean just Kevin Feige, not the CORPORATE ENTITY that is Marvel Studios, as stated in the parameters of the deal) Spider-Man'

pretty catch title, eh?

 

[Zarex]

Marvel's press release doesn't go into the specifics of the deal, whereas the articles from Variety, THR, etc. do, shedding light on and clarifying what was said in the official press release. It's no different from any other news agency clarifying and publishing specific and more in-depth details about, say, a press conference held by the police or a mayor concerning a shooting or some other kind of incident.



Kevin Feige is collaborating with Sony on the making of this film; Marvel Studios, as a corporate entity, is not.

That's the distinction that I'm drawing and no-one else is, and it's a distinction that each of the articles I linked to above are quite clear on.

I read all of the articles you linked to back when they were first released. I just read them again. Honestly, it's not that clear.

There is nothing in any of those linked articles that states that Marvel Studios (THE CORPORATE ENTITY!) is not involved in the making of the Sony Spider-Man films. Nothing. The best evidence we have is from the joint press release, that certainly implies the studios involvement through the wording "team of experts' in reference to the co-production arrangement.

One key point that you have been harping on, that Kevin Feige is not getting paid by Sony, has been attributed to the Variety article. And it simply is not there. I can't confirm whether Feige will or will not be compensated for his hundreds of hours of work, but my guess is the Producer's Guild of America, of which Feige is a member, may have a problem with the arrangement.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

I've never actually said that the film itself won't have a Marvel logo attached to it. Quite the contrary; I've acknowledged that there will be a Marvel logo on the front of the movie; it just won't be the Marvel Studios logo.

I do stand by my statement that Sony won't put the term "Marvel's" in the title of the movie or attach a Marvel logo to said title, though.


#1:
Spider-Man: How Sony, Marvel Will Benefit from Unique Deal

#2:
The Weird Specifics Of Marvel And Sony's Secret Spider-Man Deal

#3:
With Marvel Deal, Sony Opts to Lease Rather Than Sell Spider-Man

#4:
Surprising Details on How Little the Spider-Man Deal Cost; Also: Casting Age Range and Spin-Offs

#5:
IT COST MARVEL ZERO DOLLARS TO GET SPIDER-MAN

Even if they didn't get paid, it still doesn't mean that Marvel Studios isn't involved. Marvel's own site said that a team from Marvel Studios will be in the production, are you really saying that even if Cinemablend's info contradicted that, it would make Marvel's own article false? you going against Marvel's official word with ordinary scooper sites is a new low I must say

And you completely ignored the end of my earlier post again:

Spoiler

you said to Webhead2006 that he "clearly knows nothing about how production companies work". What makes you so educated in the inner workings of a movie production company? Have you worked in one? How can you be certain that an exception couldn't be made? This deal is already kinda exceptional, and it's not a dumb idea to create buzz with a popular brand, so if Marvel gave their blessing, why wouldn't Sony be free to use a Marvel logo on top of the title?

Either you are too arrogant to answer, or you don't have a counter-argument. either way, I pretty much won the argument

 

[Spiderine]

Marvel's press release doesn't go into the specifics of the deal, whereas the articles from Variety, THR, etc. do, shedding light on and clarifying what was said in the official press release. It's no different from any other news agency clarifying and publishing specific and more in-depth details about, say, a press conference held by the police or a mayor concerning a shooting or some other kind of incident.



Kevin Feige is collaborating with Sony on the making of this film; Marvel Studios, as a corporate entity, is not.

That's the distinction that I'm drawing and no-one else is, and it's a distinction that each of the articles I linked to above are quite clear on.

I still don't see how this is true. They are possibly using MCU characters to be featured in Spiderman. How can the "Corporate Entity" not be involved at all in such an endeavor? You telling me Feige is the only one making the decisions along with Sony on a production that may feature MCU characters?

 

[The Infernal]

I still don't see how this is true. They are possibly using MCU characters to be featured in Spiderman. How can the "Corporate Entity" not be involved at all in such an endeavor? You telling me Feige is the only one making the decisions along with Sony on a production that may feature MCU characters?

Exactly. It makes no sense to think that Feige, head of Marvel Studios would sit in on Sony's Spider-man as a producer, be willing to share MCU characters and other assets and not have Marvel involved. The very inclusion of MCU assets would necessitate the inclusion of Marvel as a company. Not to mention that from the various leaked e-mails we know that Sony were keen on working out some sort of co-financing deal of some sort with Marvel. The people who were not in favour of that deal have been brushed aside.

DigificWriter is the only person making this assertion, not even the articles he links to make that point. They actually refer to it as the Marvel/Sony deal, which flies in the face of his bizarre assertion.

 

[DigificWriter]

Even if they didn't get paid, it still doesn't mean that Marvel Studios isn't involved. Marvel's own site said that a team from Marvel Studios will be in the production, are you really saying that even if Cinemablend's info contradicted that, it would make Marvel's own article false? you going against Marvel's official word with ordinary scooper sites is a new low I must say

The subsequent reports don't contradict the press release; they clarify the situation.

And the press release says "Kevin Feige and his team of experts at Marvel", not "Kevin Feige and his team of experts at Marvel Studios".

And you completely ignored the end of my earlier post again:

Spoiler

you said to Webhead2006 that he "clearly knows nothing about how production companies work". What makes you so educated in the inner workings of a movie production company? Have you worked in one? How can you be certain that an exception couldn't be made? This deal is already kinda exceptional, and it's not a dumb idea to create buzz with a popular brand, so if Marvel gave their blessing, why wouldn't Sony be free to use a Marvel logo on top of the title?

Either you are too arrogant to answer, or you don't have a counter-argument. either way, I pretty much won the argument

Putting a Marvel or Marvel Studios logo on or The phrase "Marvel's" in the title of the film defeats the purpose of Sony negotiating this deal in the manner that they did.

Furthermore, bone of the other Spider-Man films had a Marvel logo directly attached to their titles, so why would this,one?

I still don't see how this is true. They are possibly using MCU characters to be featured in Spiderman. How can the "Corporate Entity" not be involved at all in such an endeavor? You telling me Feige is the only one making the decisions along with Sony on a production that may feature MCU characters?

MCU characters appearing in Spider-Man films without direct oversight from Marvel Studios as a corporate entity is no different from Spider-Man appearing in Civil War or other movies without direct oversight from Sony as a corporate entity.

 

[DavidW]

Entered thread

Saw DigificWriter

Left thread

 

[LizardMan07]

I've never actually said that the film itself won't have a Marvel logo attached to it. Quite the contrary; I've acknowledged that there will be a Marvel logo on the front of the movie; it just won't be the Marvel Studios logo.

I do stand by my statement that Sony won't put the term "Marvel's" in the title of the movie or attach a Marvel logo to said title, though.


#1:
Spider-Man: How Sony, Marvel Will Benefit from Unique Deal

#2:
The Weird Specifics Of Marvel And Sony's Secret Spider-Man Deal

#3:
With Marvel Deal, Sony Opts to Lease Rather Than Sell Spider-Man

#4:
Surprising Details on How Little the Spider-Man Deal Cost; Also: Casting Age Range and Spin-Offs

#5:
IT COST MARVEL ZERO DOLLARS TO GET SPIDER-MAN

I enjoyed those articles

Especially this quote

The fans win, obviously, as we’ll finally get to see a true Spider-Man movie made in the vision of Marvel Studios