Homecoming All the technical details of this deal

[Oscorp]

BRAB 1 - 0 DigificWriter

 

[CaptainWagner]

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".

Fiege works at Marvel STUDIOS. Therefore it is logical to assume that his "team of experts" is from Marvel Studios.

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.

How does this defeat their purpose. They get the money while using Marvel's branding. Wasn't THAT the purpose of the deal?



And just a question, I can't for the life of me figure out what your avatat is. Could you enlighten me, please, as it's driving me crazy?

 

[Mike Murdock]

^ Frankly, there's no reasonable interpretation other than that his team of experts is from Marvel Studios. Feige doesn't have any other teams of experts lying around.

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".

Aside from who gets credit, what's the practical difference between the two?

 

[TheWallCrawler]

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".

Hurm... I admit that it can't be clarified, but can you admit that it's possible that when the article says "an expert team at Marvel" it might mean Marvel Studios? Since in this context often when people say Marvel the mean Marvel Studios. I might be wrong, but it's a posibility

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?

Wasn't the deal made because Marvel Studios was popular and Sony's Spider-man was on thin ice? It's not like they were running out of time, they could've tried to continue on their own, so making the deal of having Spider-man in MCU is like admitting that they couldn't make it without Marvel Studios' more popular brand. If Marvel Studios gave their blessing on attaching "Marvel's" to the title, I don't see why Sony wouldn't use that opportunity (sony's logo would still also be in the poster).

Even if you assumed that Marvel Studios wasn't involved, since their main man Feige with his team at Marvel was in co-producing, it wouldn't be too far fetched to call it "Marvel's Spider-man". Notice that the logo in this poster above the title is the same that appears in the intro of all the Spider-man movies, it's not a big compromise to just give permition to use that on top the title

Spoiler

So yeah, it's obviously not gonna be named Marvel Studios Spider-man, but having it be "Marvel's Spider-man" is not outside of the realm of possibility since it's an MCU Spidey, and MCU's main producer and a team from Marvel (be it Studios or not) is co-producing

 

[LizardMan07]

It's all about brand trust too, people associate sony with failure, especially when it comes to the spiderman brand.

Marvel studios is approaching Pixar level trust

It only makes sense to market that Marvel Studios connection as much as possible, and really I'd extend that to say it only makes sense for them to push creative control over to marvel, it really does logically follow, from everything that we've seen over the last decade, that sony would have palmed the control over.

The fact that a deal happened indicates that a desperate studio went to a thriving studio and walked out with a deal.

Which studio comes out on top in that scenario?

 

[DigificWriter]

Hurm... I admit that it can't be clarified, but can you admit that it's possible that when the article says "an expert team at Marvel" it might mean Marvel Studios? Since in this context often when people say Marvel the mean Marvel Studios. I might be wrong, but it's a posibility



Wasn't the deal made because Marvel Studios was popular and Sony's Spider-man was on thin ice? It's not like they were running out of time, they could've tried to continue on their own, so making the deal of having Spider-man in MCU is like admitting that they couldn't make it without Marvel Studios' more popular brand. If Marvel Studios gave their blessing on attaching "Marvel's" to the title, I don't see why Sony wouldn't use that opportunity (sony's logo would still also be in the poster).

Even if you assumed that Marvel Studios wasn't involved, since their main man Feige with his team at Marvel was in co-producing, it wouldn't be too far fetched to call it "Marvel's Spider-man". Notice that the logo in this poster above the title is the same that appears in the intro of all the Spider-man movies, it's not a big compromise to just give permition to use that on top the title

Spoiler

So yeah, it's obviously not gonna be named Marvel Studios Spider-man, but having it be "Marvel's Spider-man" is not outside of the realm of possibility since it's an MCU Spidey, and MCU's main producer and a team from Marvel (be it Studios or not) is co-producing

The fact that each of the articles I linked to specifically makes mention that neither Sony nor Marvel Studios receives any monetary share of the other's filmic endeavors that feature Spider-Man and the fact that 3 of the articles I linked to make mention that Kevin Feige will not be paid by Sony for his involvement in co-producing the 2017 film are pretty concrete indicators of and clarifying evidence for Marvel Studios - as a corporate entity - not being involved in the production of the 2017 film or anything else that Sony chooses to do with the character.

As far as a Marvel logo appearing above the title is concerned, nothing I have seen gives me any reason to believe that there will be any practical change in the promotional labeling of this film relative to the way that previous Spider-Man films have been labeled for promotional purposes, particularly given the information we have concerning the specific details of this partnership.

 

[DigificWriter]

Fiege works at Marvel STUDIOS. Therefore it is logical to assume that his "team of experts" is from Marvel Studios.

You might have a point if it weren't for the fact that subsequent reporting on the specific details of this arrangement made it clear that the 2017 film is being produced, financed, distributed, and marketed completely by Sony.

How does this defeat their purpose. They get the money while using Marvel's branding. Wasn't THAT the purpose of the deal?

Sony negotiated this deal in such a way that it leaves the Spider-Man IP firmly in their control. Turning creative control of Spider-Man over to Marvel Studios when it comes to films that they (Sony) are producing, financing, distributing, and marketing would render the fact that they retain firm control of the Spider-Man IP obsolete.

And just a question, I can't for the life of me figure out what your avatat is. Could you enlighten me, please, as it's driving me crazy?

It's a,picture of my girlfriend. Unfortunately, using it as an avatar reduced its quality significantly, and I feel slightly silly for not having noticed that until now.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

The fact that each of the articles I linked to specifically makes mention that neither Sony nor Marvel Studios receives any monetary share of the other's filmic endeavors that feature Spider-Man and the fact that 3 of the articles I linked to make mention that Kevin Feige will not be paid by Sony for his involvement in co-producing the 2017 film are pretty concrete indicators of and clarifying evidence for Marvel Studios - as a corporate entity - not being involved in the production of the 2017 film or anything else that Sony chooses to do with the character.

As far as a Marvel logo appearing above the title is concerned, nothing I have seen gives me any reason to believe that there will be any practical change in the promotional labeling of this film relative to the way that previous Spider-Man films have been labeled for promotional purposes, particularly given the information we have concerning the specific details of this partnership.

It doesn't matter if Marvel Studio's got no money from it, that Spider-man is still MCU and Marvel logo might be attached on top of the title just as an indication that it's part of the MCU series. It's not a lie that it's a part of the Marvel movie series, so naming it that is not a stretch. This debate comes down to if you think that Marvel would be generous enough to lend that logo for the main title use. It wouldn't make Sony lose any control since it doesn't say "Marvel Studios", it just says "Marvel".

Doesn't the deal having happened make you believe in the possibility that Sony wants what Marvel Studios has and that they would gladly slap the Marvel logo on the main title if they got the permition? The previous movies weren't called the Sony Spider-man so the Marvel logo isn't replacing Sony's logo, which will be in the same place in the posters it always has been

 

[Chris B]

I'm wondering if perhaps the deal in regards to the solo Spider-Man films is a scenario where its a de facto co-production but not a de jure one.

Meaning Marvel Studios as a business entity isn't technically involved so they don't help finance or receive box office money from the solo films. But Feige himself is involved as a producer and likely a driving force behind the development of the film. And as a producer has the prerogative to hire the crew that he likes, meaning the Marvel Studios gang.

Basically, for lack of a better term, a backdoor co-production.

 

[LizardMan07]

Digific, if sony are completely autonomous in the creation of Spider-Man 2017, why were other marvel films pushed back to accomodate spider-man?

Would that indicate that marvel are involved in the reboot? So much so as to delay their own productions?

Why does marvels media team control the official spiderma twitter account now?

Why is Feige already making comments about the 2017 film in particular? (Origin story omitted for example)

Why are the ideas for Spider-Man's future all of a sudden not bad? Source: aunt may isn't getting a spinoff, sinister six aren't laughing at spidermans black suit

Why does one of your websites say its marvels vision being crafted?

 

[Mike Murdock]

I'm wondering if perhaps the deal in regards to the solo Spider-Man films is a scenario where its a de facto co-production but not a de jure one.

That's what I've been arguing.

To be fair, it isn't entirely that way. Sony is still taking all the risk and reaping all the reward. That's why they want to have ultimate veto power. But they aren't going to make this deal unless they think Marvel's team can make their movies more profitable. And the fact that Feige and his Marvel team are involved is strong evidence of that. They run things, Sony can step in and veto an idea but, unless they fire Feige, they can't step in and just come up with their own ideas instead.

 

[DigificWriter]

Digific, if sony are completely autonomous in the creation of Spider-Man 2017, why were other marvel films pushed back to accomodate spider-man?

Because, even with Sony independently producing, financing, distributing, and marketing the film, it's still an official part of the MCU.

Why does marvels media team control the official spiderma twitter account now?

I wasn't aware that they did.

Why is Feige already making comments about the 2017 film in particular? (Origin story omitted for example)

That's one of his jobs as co-producer. It doesn't mean he's speaking as a representative of Marvel Studios when he does so.

Why does one of your websites say its marvels vision being crafted?

That seems to be conjecture on Cinemablend's part.

 

[LizardMan07]

Because, even with Sony independently producing, financing, distributing, and marketing the film, it's still an official part of the MCU.

Ok, so why did they have to move it back then? Doesn't change that a movement in a film indicates a directing of resources, especially when it is done as a direct result of the Spider-Man deal.

Consider that the films were moved back almost instantly, this indicates pre-planning, perhaps as Feige said, they had a plan set out in October. The movement of these Marvel films indicates a planned shift, explicitly mentioned to have been planned before the deal was finalised.

As such these movements are unrelated to Sony, and as such, these movements must be in house. Marvel won't move resources and dates for a film that is not theirs, as such, it stands to reason that the film is, in part, theirs.

I wasn't aware that they did.

Oh, ok.

So why does Sony not control it? If they independently own the character? This would fall under marketing. Reality seems to contradict the press release in parts, considering logic pushes us to perceive that Marvel may be helping Sony save face, and that reality is showing us that; (so far in this post)

Marvel is helping to Market the Film
Marvel could be directing resources back towards the film

We can come to the conclusion that the press release isn't cold hard truth. As such, a deal where Marvel is steering the wheel makes logical sense when we can show that the press release might not be 100% true.

(Consider too, that this makes sense. If Marvel where doing some backdoor help, they can't scream about it from the window. Hence, under wraps, hence, what we're being told can't be considered 100% fact)

That's one of his jobs as co-producer. It doesn't mean he's speaking as a representative of Marvel Studios when he does so.

I believe he was;

Let's look at the interview again http://collider.com/spider-man-kevin-feige-confirms-peter-parker-in-high-school/

He says

We want to play with Spider-Man in the high school years because frankly there’ve been five Spider-Man films and the amazing thing about it is, even though there’ve been five Spider-Man films, there are so many things from the comics that haven’t been done yet.

Note "we". He is talking as if he is part of an organisation/group. So later on in his speech, since he is talking in this perspective, we can gather what "we" means.


Then he says

I think it was midway through the first film that he graduated high school. At the beginning of the second Marc Webb film, he graduated high school

Notice he didn't say "our"? Because he's not speaking as a Sony representative, but as a marvel representative. If he was a producer on Sony's independent film, he'd say "our"

Note in the next sentence, he uses "we" again, indicating his perspective has NOT changed.

Therefore it stands to reason he was speaking as a member of Marvel Studios, as an entity.

Also note some tidbits from collider.

"For a refresher on all of Marvel’s confirmed releases"

They then list spidey.

Marvel’s Kevin Feige overseeing things creatively.

the Marvel Spider-Man being high school-aged

Kinda looks like they're saying Marvel is wearing the pants?

That seems to be conjecture on Cinemablend's part.

So when a source agrees with your opinion it is stone cold irrefutable fact but when they don't it's mere conjecture?

Kinda reduces the validity of all your sources if you use them like that.

Also, I'll chuck back in the part of my post you might have missed when you chopped it up;

Why are the ideas for Spider-Man's future all of a sudden not bad? Source: aunt may isn't getting a spinoff, sinister six aren't laughing at spidermans black suit

 

[gugumugats]

Can Sony use Marvel studios characters in Spidey movies and can Marvel Studious use Spidey-centric characters in MCU movies?

 

[Talion]

You guys should cut DigificWriter some slack. He didn't read the Sony leaked emails, in fact he didn't even know how to reach them before I told him how on the other thread. I'm sure that he'll come out different from the experience of reading those emails. It's obvious that Marvel would never agree to let Spider-Man into the MCU if they were not in charge creatively. And they are. Of course that Sony has a "final say", but it's basically Marvel steering the boat because if there's one thing to learn from the Sony leaked emails, it's that Sony don't have a single clue on what to do with Spider-Man. And that's fine, superhero films is not their thing, hell, not a single other studio is doing them like Marvel is doing, so that's nothing to be ashamed of. They are good with Oscar bait films and some original ideas, they have some great video game IPs and they surely will be putting that for good use eventually, but superhero films is Marvel's forte. I'm happy that they have the maturity to understand that and got Kevin Feige on board. Kevin Feige and Amy Pascal are the ones guiding Spider-Man now, but I'm sure that Amy will have the good sense to hear and follow whatever Feige says because the man created the freaking greatest franchise in the universe. Kevin Feige is literally getting bigger than George Lucas when it comes to world building, and that's really not an easy feat. So yeah, Marvel is in the control, they are "officially" not co-financing (even though I don't personally trust this, I think there're things we don't know about, even if the "official" documents tell a different story) and Sony is the one banking Spider-Man. But it's quite clear to me that Sony has leased creative control of Spider-Man to Marvel.

 

[DigificWriter]

I read through many of the emails, and a significant number of the things that were relevant to Spider-Man, Marvel, and a working partnership between the two studios that were discussed therein do not match and are contradicted by the reporting done by Variety and other sites following the announcement of this deal between the two studios, to the point that I would consider said emails and the contents thereof to be completely obsolete in light of what we know about the partnership agreement that was struck between the studios and announced two months ago.

Yes, there are things that were discussed in those emails that ended up being part of the deal that was finalised in January, but there are far more differences of significance than there are similarities.

These comments are probably going to get me lambasted, but that's how I see things and where I stand right now.

 

[Talion]

I read through many of the emails, and a significant number of the things that were relevant to Spider-Man, Marvel, and a working partnership between the two studios that were discussed therein do not match and are contradicted by the reporting done by Variety and other sites following the announcement of this deal between the two studios, to the point that I would consider said emails and the contents thereof to be completely obsolete in light of what we know about the partnership agreement that was struck between the studios and announced two months ago.

Yes, there are things that were discussed in those emails that ended up being part of the deal that was finalised in January, but there are far more differences of significance than there are similarities.

These comments are probably going to get me lambasted, but that's how I see things and where I stand right now.

Too soon. You need more time to digest them. You can't believe that Marvel would accept to have Spider-Man in the MCU without them getting to control him creatively. Sony is getting "final say" and a hell lot of money because these Spider-Man movies will finally have a vision, a guiding light and happening inside a bigger world. The Marvel Cinematic Universe world. And trust me, it's NOT Sony that's steering the wheel.

 

[DigificWriter]

My position is unlikely to change with time, I can tell you that right now. I have far more faith in the veracity of what's been reported on concerning the agreement that was made in January than I do in the contents of those leaked emails, particularly when, as I noted, the amount of differences between what we got and what was discussed in those emails relative to Sony and Marvel working together far outstrips the similarities.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Can Sony use Marvel studios characters in Spidey movies and can Marvel Studious use Spidey-centric characters in MCU movies?

Not indiscriminately. Right now, the deal is for the 2017 Spider-Man movie and one Marvel movie. Frankly, that Marvel movie is almost certainly Civil War, but even that hasn't been said yet. Even then, I think every agreement to use characters is specific to that movie. I certainly don't think Sony can use them in any of their independent spin-offs.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

My position is unlikely to change with time, I can tell you that right now. I have far more faith in the veracity of what's been reported on concerning the agreement that was made in January than I do in the contents of those leaked emails, particularly when, as I noted, the amount of differences between what we got and what was discussed in those emails relative to Sony and Marvel working together far outstrips the similarities.

Ok. But think about this: If Marvel Studios would give Sony permition to use the Marvel logo on top of the title, wouldn't Sony use that in a second? Sony's logo has never been on top of the title because the Marvel logo, before being a production company logo, is a stamp for the MCU series since all that is a 1 interconnected series now. Sony having final say does not mean that they wouldn't take advantage of Marvel's brand (otherwise what was the point of the deal?). So since the logo doesn't say "Studios", wouldn't that make it already much more acceptable (assuming Marvel accepted the use, and why wouldn't they since they already agreed that MCU Spider-man will be the same as in Sony's upcoming solo films)

If the argument is that Sony would want this to be recognized also as Sony's baby, well the posters would still have the Sony logo wouldn't they? Sony was never putting any emphasis on the fact it was Sony's Spider-man when they marketed any of the previous movies, I don't see why they would start now

 

[JOE]

Too soon. You need more time to digest them. You can't believe that Marvel would accept to have Spider-Man in the MCU without them getting to control him creatively. Sony is getting "final say" and a hell lot of money because these Spider-Man movies will finally have a vision, a guiding light and happening inside a bigger world. The Marvel Cinematic Universe world. And trust me, it's NOT Sony that's steering the wheel.

I'd say they're definitely steering the wheel. Marvel is just telling them where to go, typical back seat drivers.

People still fail to realize that the 2017 Spider-Man movie is a SONY movie that Marvel is helping out with. They're not just going to fork up a ton of cash and let Marvel call 100% of the shots. They're going to strongly consider their suggestions considering how well the MCU is doing in comparison to Sony's previous universe. However, final creative control is what it is, and it lies in Sony's hands.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

I'd say they're definitely steering the wheel. Marvel is just telling them where to go, typical back seat drivers.

People still fail to realize that the 2017 Spider-Man movie is a SONY movie that Marvel is helping out with. They're not just going to fork up a ton of cash and let Marvel call 100% of the shots. They're going to strongly consider their suggestions considering how well the MCU is doing in comparison to Sony's previous universe. However, final creative control is what it is, and it lies in Sony's hands.

Would you still agree that they might put the Marvel logo on top the title like this:
http://cdn1-www.comingsoon.net/asse...325_591589580977275_2778898650041679518_o.jpg

Not to even imply that Marvel Studios is involved (who have their own different logo http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fKZZ_z6ggEU/hqdefault.jpg)
...but to mark it as a part of the MCU series. At this point the Marvel logo almost acts just a name of the series rather than a production company logo (especially concidering that the production company entity has a different logo)

 

[DigificWriter]

Ok. But think about this: If Marvel Studios would give Sony permition to use the Marvel logo on top of the title, wouldn't Sony use that in a second? Sony's logo has never been on top of the title because the Marvel logo, before being a production company logo, is a stamp for the MCU series since all that is a 1 interconnected series now. Sony having final say does not mean that they wouldn't take advantage of Marvel's brand (otherwise what was the point of the deal?). So since the logo doesn't say "Studios", wouldn't that make it already much more acceptable (assuming Marvel accepted the use, and why wouldn't they since they already agreed that MCU Spider-man will be the same as in Sony's upcoming solo films)

If the argument is that Sony would want this to be recognized also as Sony's baby, well the posters would still have the Sony logo wouldn't they? Sony was never putting any emphasis on the fact it was Sony's Spider-man when they marketed any of the previous movies, I don't see why they would start now

I've been officially told to stop the arguing on this subject, but will say that I don't see Sony changing the franchise's promotional aesthetic for the live-action films even if they now have the option of doing so.

We shall see, though.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

I've been officially told to stop the arguing on this subject, but will say that I don't see Sony changing the franchise's promotional aesthetic for the live-action films even if they now have the option of doing so.

We shall see, though.

Fair enough. Yeah, these heated arguments rarely ever end with the other agreeing so it's just good to stop earlier than later

As you said, we will find out eventually anyway

 

[Webhead2006]

Digic that is the question if there is more then just Kevin from Ms on the solo film does it qualify the use of ms logo and Ms etc.... stuff. If there is more then just Kevin again I don't see why it can't or shouldn't have the ms logo. More so with its association ms now. Vs the fox marvel movies. But again we really knows what is what. In the end I am sure we all agree we hope this deal works out well. And sony doesn't make same dumb mistakes again.