|
We don’t know how much profit they’d be getting. The 50 % talked about was *co-financing*.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
To quote the article I just deridedquote:There is a lot of webbing here, but it all comes down to money, and it’s easy to understand why both sides refused to give ground. Disney asked that future Spider-Man films be a 50/50 co-financing arrangement between the studios, and there were discussions that this might extend to other films in the Spider-Man universe. Sony turned that offer down flat. Sources said that Sony, led by Tom Rothman and Tony Vinciquerra, came back with other configurations, but Disney didn’t want to do that. But Sony did not want to share its biggest franchise. Sure Disney would be putting up half the funding, but the risk is in how much you are going to make back in profit. Disney wasn’t at all interested in continuing the current terms where Marvel receives in the range of 5% of first dollar gross, sources said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
The current deal was also always a two-film deal specifically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
I'm not going to even think about this until there's a new mainline Spider-Man film in development and it's announced whether or not it's MCU-related.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
Sony: That wasn't part of the deal! You said the Spider and Jon Favreau would stay under my protection! Disney: I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
Real talk I enjoyed the last 3 Spider-Man movies a great deal, as well as his appearances in the Avengers movies, but I find it hard to get particularly upset about either Sony managing to hold onto the rights for the character because Marvel made a foolish deal over 20 years ago OR Disney throwing their considerable weight around because they want it all and want it now, and forever i hope it doesn't gently caress with the video game though because there are far fewer good superhero video games than there are good superhero movies at this point
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
OnimaruXLR posted:Real talk I enjoyed the last 3 Spider-Man movies a great deal, as well as his appearances in the Avengers movies, but I find it hard to get particularly upset about either Sony managing to hold onto the rights for the character because Marvel made a foolish deal over 20 years ago OR Disney throwing their considerable weight around because they want it all and want it now, and forever
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
Fangz posted:If Spiderman belonged to the people, no one would be making a hundred million dollar movie about him, though. AlBorlantern Corps posted:I dunno look how many bad public domain blockbusters have been attempted like Robin Hood, King Arthur, Frankenstein, Dracula Origins, Van Helsing, etc Not to mention how Iron Man, Doctor Strange, Yon-Rogg, and Everett Ross were in big budget movie and TV portrayals of Sherlock Holmes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
Disney's next move is to get other MCU actors to tweet at Sony to deflect even further onto them.FlamingLiberal posted:I don’t think this would affect the games at all. This is purely regarding the film contract Sony Computer Entertainment (or whatever their current name might be) is almost entirely separate from Sony Pictures except for the name and some guys way, way up who don't factor into their day to day operations, yeah. Aphrodite fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Aug 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Seeing anyone say gently caress you to Disney is worth losing a 2 hour movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Silver lining, no more Ned in the MCU.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
None of this matters. What matters is how we get Spider-Man into the Fast and Furious Universe. Sony's got Spider-Man for now, but F&F is Universal, so we should be most concerned about them making a deal. Sack off Disney, let them make mouse cartoons or whatever. Universal has a Spider-Man ride at their parks, which is a start, so I reckon with a little bit of leverage we can introduce Spider-Man into Fast and Furious 10. He would need to have a car of course, but I think there was a Spider-Mobile in the comics, so that can easily be done. Throw in Big Wheel as the villain (the perfect villain for the Fast series really) and bob's your uncle, fanny's your aunt, you've got a motion picture event!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
universal has the hulk so you should be looking for that team up instead
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
site posted:universal has the hulk so you should be looking for that team up instead Only distribution. Which is why we'll never see a solo Hulk film until Disney buys Universal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Silver lining, no more Ned in the MCU. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
Is it possible to have a golden lining? The greatest possible outcome lining?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
Yeah, Spider-Man is probably my favorite part of the MCU now that Cap and Iron Man are done so please forgive me for being a Disney cuck who hopes Sony doesn't take their ball and go home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
AlBorlantern Corps posted:I dunno look how many bad public domain blockbusters have been attempted like Robin Hood, King Arthur, Frankenstein, Dracula Origins, Van Helsing, etc This is the weird part about this whole IP thing to me, is that we don’t really know how it’d play out for a popular character to go public domain in this day and age, since Disney’s screwed up the practice so much that it feels like it doesn’t even exist anymore. But, like, imagine that Spiderman was public domain for the last couple years. Would anything really be that much different? Disney would’ve still added Spidey to the MCU because he’s popular. Sony would’ve still made Spiderverse/FFH because he’s popular. People would make Spiderman fanart just as they do now, since even though it’s technically against copyright law no company wants to take the PR hit of going after fans. Maybe you’d see other studios making their own Spidermen. Does that really matter to the big-rear end studios like Disney and Sony? People aren’t going to pass on their movies because they saw 3 Dev Adam and decided they were fully satiated on Spidermen. If anything, I’d almost expect Disney to try to push back on copyright nowadays. Certainly would’ve made it easier to get all the Marvel properties together. Guess we’ll know by the time Mickey goes public in 2024.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
Sony Pictures should join forces with a lartner on their size, someone who needs the right character to compete with the MCU 2022's greatest summer movie: Spider-man vs Batman
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
release the snyder cut
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Pigbuster posted:This is the weird part about this whole IP thing to me, is that we don’t really know how it’d play out for a popular character to go public domain in this day and age, since Disney’s screwed up the practice so much that it feels like it doesn’t even exist anymore. But, like, imagine that Spiderman was public domain for the last couple years. Would anything really be that much different? Disney would’ve still added Spidey to the MCU because he’s popular. Sony would’ve still made Spiderverse/FFH because he’s popular. People would make Spiderman fanart just as they do now, since even though it’s technically against copyright law no company wants to take the PR hit of going after fans. Maybe you’d see other studios making their own Spidermen. Does that really matter to the big-rear end studios like Disney and Sony? People aren’t going to pass on their movies because they saw 3 Dev Adam and decided they were fully satiated on Spidermen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
Pigbuster posted:This is the weird part about this whole IP thing to me, is that we don’t really know how it’d play out for a popular character to go public domain in this day and age, since Disney’s screwed up the practice so much that it feels like it doesn’t even exist anymore. But, like, imagine that Spiderman was public domain for the last couple years. Would anything really be that much different? Disney would’ve still added Spidey to the MCU because he’s popular. Sony would’ve still made Spiderverse/FFH because he’s popular. People would make Spiderman fanart just as they do now, since even though it’s technically against copyright law no company wants to take the PR hit of going after fans. Maybe you’d see other studios making their own Spidermen. Does that really matter to the big-rear end studios like Disney and Sony? People aren’t going to pass on their movies because they saw 3 Dev Adam and decided they were fully satiated on Spidermen. I should know the answer to this, but is Mickey actually genuinely for-realsies no-foolin’ becoming public domain in 2024?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
I gotta say I'm pretty annoyed with the people who think that because Disney is bad it means Sony is good and we should root for them out of spite. Disney's the most successfully evil corporation, not the most evil one. Sony would be just as bad if they were on top. I don't even particularly love Tom Holland as Spider-man but it doesn't mean this isn't a giant fuckup on Sony's part, and pretending it "owns" because it could theoretically in some way be bad for Disney (it wouldn't, Sony is definitely gonna suffer worse if this doesn't get resolved) is basically like thinking Trump is cool because John McCain didn't like him.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
No they wouldn’t just by virtue of they don’t run Disney parks and didn’t do that copyright stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:15
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I should know the answer to this, but is Mickey actually genuinely for-realsies no-foolin’ becoming public domain in 2024? It looks like he might be, but I bet he won't.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
Pigbuster posted:This is the weird part about this whole IP thing to me, is that we don’t really know how it’d play out for a popular character to go public domain in this day and age, since Disney’s screwed up the practice so much that it feels like it doesn’t even exist anymore. But, like, imagine that Spiderman was public domain for the last couple years. Would anything really be that much different? Disney would’ve still added Spidey to the MCU because he’s popular. Sony would’ve still made Spiderverse/FFH because he’s popular. People would make Spiderman fanart just as they do now, since even though it’s technically against copyright law no company wants to take the PR hit of going after fans. Maybe you’d see other studios making their own Spidermen. Does that really matter to the big-rear end studios like Disney and Sony? People aren’t going to pass on their movies because they saw 3 Dev Adam and decided they were fully satiated on Spidermen. Dracula etc are public domain in their original versions. The appeal with making blockbuster interpretations of public domain characters is that the film version, like whatever Dark Universe Frankenstein might be, or like Marvel's iteration of Thor - those characters are not public domain, they are new characters based on the original with their own copyrights. It's one question to say 'what if Spiderman belonged to the masses', it's a different question to say 'I'll make Spiderman *stay* belonging to the masses'. The question of 'what would happen if Spiderman was public domain' depends on a wide range of things and is hard to definitively say. Are we supposing that this is because copyright ended very quickly? Well, the answer could be that we wouldn't see a Spiderman movie because Disney, Warner Bros and Fox would all be making Superman and Batman movies because Superman and Batman are more popular. It could be that Spiderman never got popular because the execs choose to focus on more recent works still in copyright which are more lucrative for toy and merchandising rights. I suspect the main effect of radically shortening copyrights at this point would be to produce a wave of remakes, basically. Fangz fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Aug 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
If Spider-man's copyright had run out quickly then Batman and Superman would've been public domain before Spider-man was even created.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
I wonder if I'll ever see live action Spider-Man meet the Fantastic Four in my lifetime. I'm already not getting Cap and Wolverine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I should know the answer to this, but is Mickey actually genuinely for-realsies no-foolin’ becoming public domain in 2024? Yes-ish, as I understand it, the version of Mickey Mouse as he appears in Steamboat Willie will be public domain but no other versions will. The consensus seems to be that copyright extensions are done so we'll see more and more stuff slipping into public domain for all the good it's likely to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:I wonder if I'll ever see live action Spider-Man meet the Fantastic Four in my lifetime. I'm already not getting Cap and Wolverine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I should know the answer to this, but is Mickey actually genuinely for-realsies no-foolin’ becoming public domain in 2024? He's scheduled to, but unless there's some kind of cataclysmic collapse and reorganization of American society by then, the copyright is getting renewed. rantmo posted:Yes-ish, as I understand it, the version of Mickey Mouse as he appears in Steamboat Willie will be public domain but no other versions will. The consensus seems to be that copyright extensions are done so we'll see more and more stuff slipping into public domain for all the good it's likely to do. Wait this person seems to actually know what they're talking about listen to them instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
ArmyOfMidgets posted:Sony Pictures should join forces with a lartner on their size, someone who needs the right character to compete with the MCU If you’re anti-monopoly, then you should be against a Sony-Time Warner merger. As a digital services company and an entertainment company, they’d simultaneously control the means of distribution as well as production. IE an actual monopoly, and not one that simply owns a lot of IP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
I think a lot of people are salivating as this somehow the beginning of the collapse of the MCU empire and then it'll be the 70s again where the directors are making "real" movies and the studios can do nothing about it baby!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
I think probably not that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:I think probably not that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
fwiw https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/spider-man-standoff-why-sony-thinks-it-doesnt-need-kevins-playbook-anymore-1233644 quote:Now, insiders at both studios are pointing fingers at one another about counteroffers that never happened or offers that were supposedly mighty generous. "The economic terms for that [Spider-Man] franchise seem to have gotten more complicated — partly reflecting Disney’s shifting priorities since the Fox acquisition," says Wall Street analyst Tuna Amobi, of CFRA Research, who isn't surprised by the impasse. "From an economic and creative standpoint, I would think the development probably has more implications either way for Sony." still think this will probably end with both parties reaching a compromise that keeps Spidey in the MCU, but we'll see
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
Remember how the Fox merger "fell through" like twice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DurexIndia/status/1164161746782658560
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 02:08
|
|
