Homecoming All the technical details of this deal

[Spider2099]

No one is misinterpreting anything. You keep repeating yourself and saying the same thing over and over again. If it bugs you that much then just ignore it.

 

[Spider2099]

true, I'm just saying though the way marvel has been running their phases, having movies build up to the ultimate crossover films - spiderman will be a part of that process for the 3rd film, so it will not make sense for him not to be in av3. again, "sony makes nothing off of marvel movies that feature spidey" so what are these said marvel movies that will feature spidey (starting from phase 3, because that's where spiderman will have his reboot)?

spidey's probably making his debut in cap3, but it'll probably be a cameo/extremely short role.

If Marvel does not profit from solo Spider-Man films then they NEED to include him in their crossover MCU films, especially Infinity War.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ So people referring to this film as "Marvel's Spider-Man" and making the claim(s) that Sony is just going to sit back and say yes to Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios on every major decision pertaining to the film doesn't qualify as people misinterpreting the situation?

 

[Spider2099]

^ So people referring to this film as "Marvel's Spider-Man" and making the claim(s) that Sony is just going to be 'yes men' for Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios doesn't qualify as people misinterpreting the situation?

People refer to it as "Marvel's Spider-Man" because Spider-Man is in the MCU. That's a technicality. We know he is still Sony's. And we don't know if Sony will be 'yes men' or take most of the creative control. There's a lot of interpretation involved since none of us were in the room while this meeting was taking place. Seriously, just stop repeating yourself for everyone's sanity.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

The reason I keep repeating the things that I am is because it bugs me that people keep misinterpreting the deal's actual parameters and acting like Marvel Studios and Kevin Feige are the ones with the controlling interest in this deal when it's pretty crystal clear that they're not.

I would've preferred that this deal not have happened, but now that it has, I'm indifferent as to what it is actually going to mean vis a vis Spider-Man as a character going forward.

are you forreal? i mean to each their own, but why the hell not?

as for misinterpretation, look at my OP and tell me there what's wrong. that's what stated all this convo in the first place and it's why I made the thread.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ You're not to blame when it comes to misinterpreting the situation, at least not really; it's subsequent responses that have me all up in arms.

As far as not wanting this deal to happen goes, my reasons lie in the fact that I liked both TASM films and was looking forward to seeing that trilogy completed and saw no reason to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'.

 

[Man in the Suit]

^ So people referring to this film as "Marvel's Spider-Man" and making the claim(s) that Sony is just going to be 'yes men' for Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios doesn't qualify as people misinterpreting the situation?

Good lord, man. Nobody is misinterpreting. Just reading between the lines.

Sony ousted Avi Arad & Matt Tolmach, and made a deal with Kevin Feige & Marvel. It's very telling who is involved on the creative side.

People are calling it Marvel's Spider-Man because he's appearing in the MCU first. Then Kevin Feige co-produces the solo film with Amy Pascal. His team's ideas, along with Pascal's, will be used. That's just a given.

 

[Spider2099]

Part of the deal was removing Avi and Matt's creative control, something Feige wanted to happen. Obviously his wish was granted.

 

[DigificWriter]

Calling the film "Marvel's Spider-Man" implies that Marvel Studios owns the character, which they don't. It also implies that Feige is a more equal partner in this situation than he is when the reality is that he's working for Amy's new boss(es) at Sony just as much as she is, but he's not getting paid the way that she is.

As far as "reading between the lines" goes, there's nothing to 'read in between'. This deal is very straightforward, and its parameters are far more heavily weighted towards Sony's benefit than towards Feige and Marvel Studios'.

 

[Man in the Suit]

Part of the deal was removing Avi and Matt's creative control, something Feige wanted to happen. Obviously his wish was granted.

Exactly. Devin Faraci said Arad was the factor for Feige not making a deal because he'll never work with Arad again.

And here we are.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

If Marvel does not profit from solo Spider-Man films then they NEED to include him in their crossover MCU films, especially Infinity War.

it's not that they needed to (they didn't, they were doing more than fine on their own financially), I'm pretty sure this was the plan. spiderman in the avengers has been a nonsensical sentiment since 2012. but not, anymore. now, come 2018, it will be a reality.

 

[Spider2099]

Exactly. Devin Faraci said Arad was the factor for Feige not making a deal because he'll never work with Arad again.

And here we are.

And now he is a co-producer for the 2017 Spider-Man film.

 

[Spider2099]

it's not that they needed to (they didn't, they were doing more than fine on their own financially), I'm pretty sure this was the plan. spiderman in the avengers has been a nonsensical sentiment since 2012. but not, anymore. now, come 2018, it will be a reality.

I meant that Marvel will "need" to put Spider-Man in an Avengers: Infinity War film if they want to benefit from the deal.

They will know if Spider-Man is in Avengers: Infinity War long before the 2017 film is released. Production on the film has to begin by 2016-2017 so we'll find out soon enough.

 

[Man in the Suit]

Calling the film "Marvel's Spider-Man" implies that Marvel Studios owns the character, which they don't. It also implies that Feige is a more equal partner in this situation than he is when the reality is that he's working for Amy's new boss(es) at Sony just as much as she is, but he's not getting paid the way that she is.

As far as "reading between the lines" goes, there's nothing to 'read in between'. This deal is very straightforward, and its parameters are far more heavily weighted towards Sony's benefit than towards Feige and Marvel Studios'.

You honestly think Marvel/Disney would sign a bad deal and be a slave for a troubled studio that would tarnish their multi billion dollar franchise?

Between the lines.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I meant that Marvel will "need" to put Spider-Man in an Avengers: Infinity War film if they want to benefit from the deal.

They will know if Spider-Man is in Avengers: Infinity War long before the 2017 film is released. Production on the film has to begin by 2016-2017 so we'll find out soon enough.

yeah.

again if we look at how marvel has been operating their phases, they have about 4-5 superhero films, and it ends with an avengers film with all of those superheroes appearing in it.

after the reveal, the superhero films within phase 3 in 2017 were pushed back to make room the spiderman reboot, and that phase ends with av3. so would it really make sense for them to not include spiderman in it? who will at that point, be the most important superhero in the mcu?

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Calling the film "Marvel's Spider-Man" implies that Marvel Studios owns the character, which they don't.

The "Marvel's" can be interpreted as "Marvel Cinematic Universe Presents:"

 

[Chip Chipperson]

spider-man in the MCU is a pretty huge deal, I don't think marvel would've went into this if they weren't confident in Sony's willingness to cooperate.

Sony may have final say, but you can be damn sure that they'll be listening very closely to Marvel's creative direction.

 

[Zarex]

As far as "reading between the lines" goes, there's nothing to 'read in between'. This deal is very straightforward, and its parameters are far more heavily weighted towards Sony's benefit than towards Feige and Marvel Studios'.

We can argue which Studio will ultimately benefit more at the BO. But Marvel gaining joint control over the cinematic appearances of their flagship character is a tremendous win for the studio, and a huge concession on the part of Sony that will be almost impossible for to back away from.

Sony could have made this deal years ago. What's changed is they ran out of options.

 

[DigificWriter]

The "Marvel's" can be interpreted as "Marvel Cinematic Universe Presents:"

Most people won't do that, though.

 

[DigificWriter]

We can argue which Studio will ultimately benefit more at the BO. But Marvel gaining joint control over the cinematic appearances of their flagship character is a tremendous win for the studio, and a huge concession on the part of Sony that will be almost impossible for to back away from.

Sony could have made this deal years ago. What's changed is they ran out of options.

Marvel Studios won't see a single penny of the BO from Sony's MCU Spider-Man films, just as Sony won't see a single penny of the BO from Marvel Studios' films that use the character(s) of Spider-Man.

Sony gets to determine pretty much everything about MS' use of the character other than the way in which he's used creatively, and Sony in turn gets to have Feige help right the sinking ship that has been their franchise (from their POV, anyway) without having to spend a single penny in order to secure that help, and without having to share the monetary results of said help.

That's the beauty of the deal, and the reason it directly benefits Sony more than it does Marvel Studios.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Most people won't do that, though.

uhh, most people know that a marvel cinematic universe exists, and it's been maybe a week since the reveal. we've got 2 years before spiderman shows up on the big screen and for those who care about finding out as much about that deal as possible, won't be bothered by the title if it says "marvel's spiderman" because they know'll what it means/what it all boils down to.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Marvel gets all money from merchandise sales, so it also benefits them greatly.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ That's an indirect benefit of the deal. Marvel gets both a direct and indirect benefit from the deal, but Sony gets a full phalanx of direct benefits, chief amongst them being the ability to capitalize on having their films and their licensed characters connected directly to the MCU without having to share any of the revenue generated by those connections and by retaining full control of said licensed characters and being able to secure the pro bono assistance of Kevin Feige and MS in righting a franchise that they're not happy with.

That's why the deal is so heavily weighted in Sony's favor.

I might not have made the deal, but Sony does deserve credit for making a deal whose benefits - both in the short term and the long - are so heavily weighted directly in their favor.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Marvel gets all money from merchandise sales, so it also benefits them greatly.

i remember walking by a disney store in the mall, and kid sized spiderman costumes was the first thing I saw.

I don't think they always had it though - I heard sony had the rights first and sold them back to disney at some point.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Civil War and Infinity War Parts 1 and 2 are gonna make unholy amounts of money. sony won't see any of that.

The Spidey solos could reach a billion, not so sure about the spin offs though.

I think the deal works out for both sides just fine. Both are winners at the end of the day.