XtremelyBaneful
xoxxxoooxo
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 16,617
- Reaction score
- 1,648
- Points
- 103
uhh, what
^ This deal has absolutely no effect on Sony's control and ownership of the Spider-Man IP (intellectual property). They had full control and ownership of it before they made this deal, and they still have full control and ownership of it now.
Nobody is arguing that, we're just arguing how the movie is being made.^This deal has absolutely no effect on Sony's control and ownership of the Spider-Man IP (intellectual property). They had full control and ownership of it before they made this deal, and they still have full control and ownership of it now.
Marvel would NOT have made this deal if they weren't in control of Spidey.
Marvel Studios - as an entity - are not and will not be involved in the production, financing, distribution, or marketing of the 2017 film or any follow-ups to it, so it doesn't make sense for them to put their brand stamp directly on said films.
Yes, Kevin Feige is involved with Sony's side of the equation, but Marvel Studios, as an entity, is not.
Stop saying that Marvel wouldn't do something that they clearly did.
Feige is speaking about the character in the context of his appearance in Civil War and in the context of his duties as co-producer on Sony's 2017 film.
Spider-Man remains Sony's intellectual property. End. Of. Story. He's simply being lent out to Marvel and integrated into the MCU.
Spider-Man is not and has never been Sony's intellectual property. Sony and Marvel - the owner of the Spider-Man IP - have a licensing agreement which allows the licensee to produce and distribute films featuring Marvel's Spider-Man character for theatrical production. This licensing agreement includes reversion terms by which the cinematic rights to the Spider-Man character family reverts back to Marvel if a new film isn't in production within a specific time period - commonly believed to be 5 years. Sony has absolutely no ownership interest in the character. End. Of. Story.
See, that's where I think the disagreement comes in. For all intents and purposes, Feige is Marvel. And the whole reason he's doing this without pay is because he's being paid by Marvel for this project (through his salary). I do agree that production teams, etc. won't be from Marvel unless Feige hires them for this project (which, as producer, he could do), but the overall creative vision is being handled by the same person.
Spider-Man is a licensed IP, yes, but that license is currently in Sony's possession, so referring to it as Sony's IP is an accurate description.
Stop saying that Marvel wouldn't do something that they clearly did.
Feige is speaking about the character in the context of his appearance in Civil War and in the context of his duties as co-producer on Sony's 2017 film.
Spider-Man remains Sony's intellectual property. End. Of. Story. He's simply being lent out to Marvel and integrated into the MCU.
It is absolutely not an accurate description, since in addition to having some degree of control over Spidey's cinematic appearances, Marvel has 100% ownership over the character's vastly more profitable licensing agreements, as well as full TV and publishing rights. You are a stickler for language regarding the terms of the Sony-Marvel deal, so it makes no sense why you are being lax here.
It might not be a COMPLETE description of the situation, but it is an accurate one.
To use an equivalent example, it is an accurate description to say that the name "Hulk" is the licensed intellectual property of Terry Bolea and World Wrestling Entertainment even though that licensed name is also still in use in a completely different context by its original initiator, Marvel.
The dual use of a name to describe two different characters is in no way an equivalent example.
Here's an equivalent example - Warner Brothers has a licensing agreement to make the Harry Potter films and spin offs from that series. Universal has a licensing agreement to create theme park attractions based on the Harry Potter IP. Neither Warner Brothers nor Universal owns Harry Potter.