Homecoming All the technical details of this deal

[XtremelyBaneful]

uhh, what

 

[DigificWriter]

^ 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.

 

[Webhead2006]

Digic for me really either way sony and marvel one wouldn't want the other to have total control. Yes I get the press said this or that. But come on no way marvel doesn't have at least half the say in things. No way they would want sony to dictate what they want to do with spidey or what not. But again like I said earlier what ever happens I hope both parties can get the best out of spidey. And I hope that on sony case they learned from there mistakes in micromanage things won't lead to this spidey having same problems asm series went through.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

^ 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.

sony realizes that their ideas are bad. With this now being abundantly clear, the higher ups at sony force the studio to come to an agreement with marvel.

Sony Pictures now has to collaborate with marvel. Sony Studios realizes that they have made quite a mess of things with their biggest property. Sony Studios now has the opportunity to take and follow the advice of one of the most successful producers in Hollywood today. Sony Pictures likes to make money.

If a decision is up in the air, then Sony Pictures will defer to the man who is responsible in constructing a 7 billion dollar (and counting) movie franchise. This is not rocket science. You can debate this until the chickens come home to roost (which I have no doubt that you will), but that doesn't mean that Marvel is now here to sit on their hands and watch sony make a mess of things again.

 

[DigificWriter]

Sony will hire and pay the directors and writers who will be responsible for determining and driving the creative direction of their solo Spider-Man films, whereas Marvel will help execute said creative direction in a fashion that is compatible with the MCU. It's as simple and straightforward as that.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

^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.

let's forget about the technical details for a second, even though that's the point of this thread. for the purpose of the point i'm trying to get across to you, forget about the technical details for a second.

spiderman is now a part of the mcu, so think of things in perspective of the marvel cinematic universe. this fictional cinematic universe is primarily comprised of solo films (iron man, thor, hulk, captain america, daredevil), team films (guardians of the galaxy), and teamup films (avengers). spiderman, now that it is rebooted, is another solo film series that belongs in the mcu. knowing that it is part of this narrative, it is very strongly indicating that marvel will play a big role in said reboot.

and that's it. no one is saying disney owns spiderman. we all know he still belongs to sony and that this reboot and the mcu inheritance is a result of a deal.

 

[Webhead2006]

Yea that is what is important here. This spiderman is now in the mcu world and will be playing ball with the rest of mcu. Again no way marvel would agree to a deal they don't have at least half say in things. So that sony can't just go here marvel this is what we are doing. Hope it doesn't screw up your plans.

What's so wrong to say sony sony made deal so that sony essentially hired marvel to create and make the film on sony dime. In turn for sony to get a product that is likely to make them ie sony a boat load of money.

This again is no different as I say a company hires a firm to promote there product. Ie logo commercial etc.... and the company hired creates the good buzz and promote the brand. And the brand owners are owns who reap the benifits.

So here in deal marvel has the "rights" to use spidey in any of there mcu solo team or tv projects as they see fit. And sony in turn hires "marvel" to create the new solo film. In which sony gets the profits from and marvel gets the buzz and what not of spidey in world.

 

[DigificWriter]

Yes, Spider-Man will be part of the MCU, but his appearances therein will be handled by both Marvel Studios (in Civil War and potentially other films) AND Sony (in the 2017 film and potentially other projects), with each studio operating independently of the other yet building on what the other does with the character.

Yes, Kevin Feige is involved with Sony's side of the equation, but Marvel Studios, as an entity, is not. People can keep saying that Marvel would never have agreed to that kind of a deal, but the fact of the situation is that they DID agree to that kind of a deal.

 

[BatsDC]

Marvel would NOT have made this deal if they weren't in control of Spidey. Listen to interviews with Feige - he's directly talking about how HE is going to handle the character. Sony is literally going to act as a Yes-man, with a little input here and there. Marvel is going to print them money - they'd be stupid to ignore their input. Which they won't.

 

[DigificWriter]

Marvel would NOT have made this deal if they weren't in control of Spidey.

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-neil]

Sony effectively 'own' Spider-Man but they would be crazy not to implement every suggestions that Marvel put forward and they would also be crazy not to lead with the Marvel brand as Marvel's stock currently couldn't be higher.

 

[DigificWriter]

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.

 

[spider-neil]

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.

According to Ain't it Cool, the little red Marvel logo is above the Spider-Man logo for the animated movie.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ That doesn't mean Marvel Studios - the entity - has anything to do with that film, because they don't.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Yes, Kevin Feige is involved with Sony's side of the equation, but Marvel Studios, as an entity, is not.

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.

 

[Zarex]

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.

 

[Knight_SV]

DigificWriter:you seems so unhappy with this deal. are you worry sony will screw up MCU? or?

 

[DigificWriter]

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.

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.

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.

There's no disagreement to be had. Kevin Feige is the head of Marvel Studios, yes, but in this instance, he is not involved in the 2017 film as their official representative because they, as an entity, are not officially involved in it's production, something that every article written about the actual contents of this deal spelled out clearly.

 

[Zarex]

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.

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.

 

[BatsDC]

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.

Did you miss the parts of interviews where Feige directly speaks about how HE wants the Spider-Man movies to be, and how they WILL be? Feige and Marvel are going to be calling the shots on the new Spidey movie.

 

[DigificWriter]

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.

 

[Zarex]

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.

 

[Webhead2006]

Again digic all we are trying to bring up. There isn't any reason to think sony couldn't be hands off creatively reason why they made deal and will have Kevin likely handle the creative stuff. Yes they keep the rights an all. But we know sony was without a clue what to do. So again why wouldn't it be logical and wise for them to step away from creative end of the process. Let marvel handle that. And sony again still owns the rights. And are footing the costs and reaping the money off the work marvel creates for them. That is all we are trying to say could be how this deal works out.

 

[LizardMan07]

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.

Exactly.

Sony do not own spider-man.

 

[spider-neil]

From a movie point of view Sony owns Spider-Man. Sony can pretty much veto any decision that Marvel make. Not that they would, but they could.