MahvelBaby!
Superhero
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 6,942
- Reaction score
- 2,715
- Points
- 103
I still blame Simon Kinberg lmao
If rumors are to be believed, the failure of Dark Phoenix did factor into Disney’s decision to priotise the Marvel properties that they have 100% control over the ones that are licensed to other studios. And to me, it makes sense since Feige is Disney’s most prized asset at the moment when it comes to superhero IP. Even though Marvel was involved in three movies that made a billion dollars, they only stand to make the majority profit from two of out of the three since Far From Home is a Sony movie. Dark Phoenix (even though Marvel had nothing to do with it) is ultimately a Disney movie like Endgame and Captain Marvel and Dark Phoenix tanked hard, while Far From Home was a billion dollar grosser. From Disney’s point of view it makes little sense to continue this relationship without a bigger cut of the profit. Why continue to aid a competing studio and strengthen their hold on the rights when you can just cut them lose? After all Sony needs them way more than they need them.I still blame Simon Kinberg lmao
i noticed that you signed this week and only talk about this news.The next shock announcement will probably be Someone launching a takeover of Sony, Or Zeyanda being dropped due to MJ not being a totally Sony character.
Unlikely it was Disney. They wouldn't leak it just before the D23 (unwelcome distraction) and they wouldn't provide numbers that make it look like they were being greedy (50%). Sony have apparently leaked stuff through that same journalist too.My suspicion is Disney leaked the story, so I think it is Disney who undercut it themselves.
Not trying to rub it in. You're upset, I get it.
I'm just reiterating how bad the deal was and it's even worse because it allows Holland to keep playing SM outside of the MCU, further confusing the audience.
I'm really flabbergasted Disney signed that deal. It is heavily, heavily one sided. The rumor was that Feige was pushing for it because the Russos wanted him for CW (along with Feige saying it was a dream come true to work with SM). At that time Feige was threatening to quit too because of the whole Perlmutter thing. Sony was willing to sign because it was heavily in their favor and they had just gotten hacked.
Maybe Disney signed that deal as a goodwill gesture to Feige and to keep him happy.
Sony might perhaps agree to that being off screen - so mentioned but not seen.That would have been part of it for sure. Also, it was originally 2 solo movies and they got to use him for the 2 biggest films they were going to make. A bit easier to justify doing all the work for a meagre cut for 2 films and having him part of the big show in Avengers.
But moving on from that is the problem. No Avengers film in the near future and no apparent easy fit they could drop him into in the next phase so far. That an MCU Spidey film also takes out a release slot for Disney (so even more $$ being lost) the situation did need to change to make it viable for Disney to continue doing it.
I would like if they could agree to do one more to wrap up the story and his MCU arc. Resolve the cliffhanger identity reveal and have Peter step away from being Stark's replacement. Make it a bit cleaner for both sides when Sony continue with him on their own. And here is the thing about that: It easier for Marvel to continue without Spider-Man than it is for Sony to continue his story after FFH without the MCU. The next slate of films for Marvel are all free from being bothered one bit by his absence. Sony have to deal with no MCU immediately.
Sony new direction may well make that impossible in a story sense - through with the writing talent available any twist should be able to be accommodated.The next major event is years off so they have years to work out a new deal.
And this time it has backfired.Slightly OT, but given how Spider-Man's story in the MCU ends as a result of the breakup, the ending of FFH is the ultimate example of what Whedon was talking about when discussing the risk of cliff hanger endings in movies.
Joss Whedon takes on 'Empire Strikes Back,' 'Twilight'
Doesn't sound positive at all - not even who knows what the future is.
At the very least publicly it's over. I'm going to just assume it is. Hopefully sonys spider man 3 is great.
I truly believe Sony **** the bed leaking to the press.
Right before D23 no less I think Disney is going to pull some really Petty moves starting with taking John Watts
With Gunn we still don't know exactly when Disney decided to uturn.It certainly doesn't. But I hope that the future is bright for us- and Spider-Man and the MCU.
I think it might be over publicly, too. But, like the Gunn situation, I hope things are still going on privately.
I think where we disagree is Sony's Spider-Man 3 (would they even be
It certainly doesn't. But I hope that the future is bright for us- and Spider-Man and the MCU.
I think it might be over publicly, too. But, like the Gunn situation, I hope things are still going on privately.
I think where we disagree is Sony's Spider-Man 3 (would they even be able to call it 3 without the MCU connective tissue?). Diminishing returns brought him back, so other than public outcries, I think the only thing that sparks a new deal is for Sony to absolutely crash and burn.
I think if they want the public to remain on their side, Disney would be wise not to do anything that could even be construed as petty, such as taking Watts.
able to call it 3 without the MCU connective tissue?). Diminishing returns brought him back, so other than public outcries, I think the only thing that sparks a new deal is for Sony to absolutely crash and burn.
I think if they want the public to remain on their side, Disney would be wise not to do anything that could even be construed as petty, such as taking Watts.
Not long after the Fox deal was securedWith Gunn we still don't know exactly when Disney decided to uturn.