"Marvel Cinematic Universe" News & Discussion, Part 5 (Spoilers)

[the greenman]

Feige also said a Spider-Man & Venom cross-over could happen, but it depends on Sony.

The rumor is Far From Home sequel features Venom, and apparently rumors of FFH sets up a whole lot of stuff.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[brodie999]

The rumor is Far From Home sequel features Venom, and apparently rumors of FFH sets up a whole lot of stuff.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

A pipe dream for now, maybe. But considering how Marvel asked Sony to not to release the second trailer before Endgame and they skipped CinemaCon, Marvel has a lot of creative control over Spider-Man than Sony does now. I think they're gonna make a final deal in 2019-2020. One that results in Marvel regaining the full rights to Spider-Man and all characters in Sony's Marvel Universe rebooted into the MCU.

 

[AdrenalineRush1996]

We know he was almost Yon-Rogg and there's the Eternals rumors. Seems like it's always a timing issue between the John Wick movies and presumably the next Bill and Ted.

He was almost Doctor Strange as well.

 

[Freddy]

A pipe dream for now, maybe. But considering how Marvel asked Sony to not to release the second trailer before Endgame and they skipped CinemaCon, Marvel has a lot of creative control over Spider-Man than Sony does now. I think they're gonna make a final deal in 2019-2020. One that results in Marvel regaining the full rights to Spider-Man and all characters in Sony's Marvel Universe rebooted into the MCU.

I'm sorry, but no way in hell that will happen. Sony is currently desperate for bankable franchises and in recent years Spider-Man has been their only surefire hit (even the widely hated Spider-Man movies made profit). Not to mention, Venom was a monster hit at the box office and Spider-Verse a critical darling.

Marvel needs Sony in order to keep Spider-Man in MCU, all the while Sony could any day decide that they don't need Marvel anymore to make profitable movies anymore. I hope that doesn't happen, but Sony is hardly known for smart business moves.

 

[brodie999]

I'm sorry, but no way in hell that will happen. Sony is currently desperate for bankable franchises and in recent years Spider-Man has been their only surefire hit (even the widely hated Spider-Man movies made profit). Not to mention, Venom was a monster hit at the box office and Spider-Verse a critical darling.

Marvel needs Sony in order to keep Spider-Man in MCU, all the while Sony could any day decide that they don't need Marvel anymore to make profitable movies anymore. I hope that doesn't happen, but Sony is hardly known for smart business moves.

It's only a matter of time before that happens, actually. Sony renegotiated the license to put Spider-Man to grant Marvel increasing control over the web-slinger.They might've already made a new agreement and they wanna keep it under wraps for now. But I have no doubt Spider-Man will return to Marvel Studios permanently either this year or next year. Marvel is on the verge of regaining all of their characters. And everyone will be surprised when that day comes. It's inevitable.

 

[reflection01]

Do we know how much Sony makes from the Spider-Man films? I assume they get it all and Marvel gets the rights to Spider-Man and some other characters in other films. Seems like the future would just extend that.

Probably depends on how FFH and Venom 2 do. Venom made more international than Homecoming. If FFH puts up Captain Marvel numbers or better and Venom 2 tanks, I could see Sony just giving creative control back to Marvel for 3 Spidey related films every 2 years. Meanwhile, Sony can bank on Spider-verse sequels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Neo Ultra Mike]

It's only a matter of time before that happens, actually. Sony renegotiated the license to put Spider-Man to grant Marvel increasing control over the web-slinger.

Uh get your facts right man. Sony renegotiated with Marvel to put Spider-Man in the MCU in order to get themselves more money off the property after the Amazing Spider Man 2 severely under-performed and made it clear no one was interested in more films from that reboot, at least enough to make any serious profit off of it. And yeah Marvel is more in charge now of the general story and outline of these movies to fit they're network of films but Sony still gets all the various coins that come from the movie and is in charge of the promotion and marketing and still have the license to do what they want with Spider-Man.

What you seem to forget is that when Spider-Man was sold to Sony like 20 years ago Sony not only bought the merchandising and licensing rights but also part of the general character rights as well thus they even get money off the sales of the actual comic books. Since yeah Marvel was not doing well in the late 90's for reasons you can easily look up yourself. Point is though that the only way Marvel would ever get back full control over Spider-Man is if like with FOX, Disney bought Sony outright. Which yeah don't expect that to happen for awhile if ever. Disney was barely able to skate by with it's FOX deal with how much more a percentage that gets them in general entertainment. It's not something they can repeat again as the government isn't going to allow that huge a monopoly in one field, at least again for the time being.

Of course I'm pretty sure Sony is going to make a deal with Marvel to continue having Tom Holland and co in the MCU but they also probably want some crossover elements with their "venom verse" they have full control over that Marvel just has to let them do. That's why Feige said outright that it was Sony's decision for a Spider-Man vs Venom movie: he is just letting us know ahead of time they're the ones who would push for that so whether or not you feel that's a good idea it's not something he has any control of and is just generally warning about. Again Sony is trying to have their cake and eat it too with Spider Man and sadly seems like this is one case where they will succeed unless again there are some pretty major behind the scenes changes which feel pretty unlikely right now.

 

[the greenman]

I'm pretty sure Columbia (now Sony) had the rights to Spider-Man since the 80's. Back when James Cameron & Leonardo Dicaprio were attached and Hydro Man was the proposed villain. Also money and production companies like Carolco failed to seal a deal. Yeah, SONY essentially just sat on it until they saw what Fox did with X-Men.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[brodie999]

I'm pretty sure Columbia (now Sony) had the rights to Spider-Man since the 80's. Back when James Cameron & Leonardo Dicaprio were attached and Hydro Man was the proposed villain. Also money and production companies like Carolco failed to seal a deal. Yeah, SONY essentially just sat on it until they saw what Fox did with X-Men.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

I know Sony's still in charge of promoting and marketing the MCU Spider-Man movies. But it's only a matter of time before Marvel takes control of that too. Hopefully, that'll be announced at either Comic Con or D23 this year.

 

[the greenman]

I know Sony's still in charge of promoting and marketing the MCU Spider-Man movies. But it's only a matter of time before Marvel takes control of that too. Hopefully, that'll be announced at either Comic Con or D23 this year.

Yeah it's obvious. Sony is a little overkill. I think the only Spider-Man crossover promotion I hadn't seen was Spider-Man bandaids. Though don't forgive Disney, cause they'd do that too.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[Neo Ultra Mike]

I'm pretty sure Columbia (now Sony) had the rights to Spider-Man since the 80's. Back when James Cameron & Leonardo Dicaprio were attached and Hydro Man was the proposed villain. Also money and production companies like Carolco failed to seal a deal. Yeah, SONY essentially just sat on it until they saw what Fox did with X-Men.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

Uh, that's also wrong. Sony wanted the rights and wanted to make their own Spider-Man movie and did try helping with the project that James Cameron was working on but they weren't in any control of the character exactly. There's this whole story of the various rights and how they were bounced around for the greater part of the 80's and 90's from MGM and 21st Century pictures and Cannon and Caroloco pictures and how they constantly kept trying to get a movie going but never getting past pre-production for one reason or another. And it ending in this huge lawsuit over who even got the rights which Marvel was able to one but again sold them to Sony in 1999 due to again their own financial problems at the time. And yeah Sony was working on the first Spider Man right after that and was planning on starting in 2000 and having it out in 2001 but due to various behind the scenes difficulties had to delay it for a year so it came out in 2002. But since Sony was interested in a Spider Man movie since the 80's it wouldn't of mattered how well 1998 Blade or 2000 X-Men would of done: they still would of made it. Sure those being hits did actually show Marvel had some cred with people making flicks based on their characters but you shouldn't say Sony slept until there was proof a Spider-Man movie could work before making one.

And really I don't know why you guys think Sony is just going to hand Marvel over full rights in the MCU to Spider-Man and are going to loose the promotional and marketting rights. They want those to profit off of and Marvel is again going to have to work with them to still have Spider Man which is pretty clear they want and want him to feature heavily still in the MCU. So yeah have no idea where you're getting these ridiculous "Sony is giving up some control of Spider-Man in the movies" ideas from as that is obviously NOT what's happening.

 

[the greenman]

No SONY does had the rights to Spider-Man & license. I'll quote a wroter I follow alot about this:

"Spider-Man: Homecoming is still financed and distributed by Sony Pictures (i.e. they pay for 100% of it), and Sony gets the box office, but Marvel Studios produced the film and served as the “creative lead.”

(Another writer):

Marvel used to receive 5% of the revenues from Spider-Man movies, which would have amounted to nearly $125 million from the Sam Raimi-directed 2000s trilogy, by Quartz’s calculations.

It’s all about the toys, pajamas, backpacks, lunch boxes, and other Spider-Man-related merchandising that becomes more valuable to Disney whenever a popular new movie with the web-slinger hits the big screen. When Marvel gave up its stake in the Spider-Man movies, it bought the full rights to the merchandising revenue (paywall) that it had previously split with Sony. (Plus, it got to use the character in its own movies, like Captain America: Civil War, which grossed more than $1.15 billion worldwide, and the upcoming next Avengers films.)

Now the CANNON Spider-Man film was mainly a horror film. They had financial issues. Cameron wanted to produce & direct the film that he turned in a script for in '93. I did not mean Sony/Columbia sat on it deliberately. The project was always moving forward to some degree.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[Yojimbo]

Watts confirms he doesn't have a story for the 3rd Spider-Man movie yet, he does it one at a time.

 

[AdrenalineRush1996]

I'm pretty sure Columbia (now Sony) had the rights to Spider-Man since the 80's. Back when James Cameron & Leonardo Dicaprio were attached and Hydro Man was the proposed villain. Also money and production companies like Carolco failed to seal a deal. Yeah, SONY essentially just sat on it until they saw what Fox did with X-Men.

Not exactly true. Columbia had the distribution rights when the film was in development in the Eighties since Cannon had the film rights at the time, which was then transferred to Carolco in the mid Nineties with MGM gaining the distribution rights. It was in 1999 that Columbia got the film rights from Marvel.

 

[RoyalRubble]

The Russo brothers will have a panel at SDCC in Hall H on Friday July 19th.

 

[Frontier]

The Russo brothers will have a panel at SDCC in Hall H on Friday July 19th.

There to talk about all the Endgame stuff you want to ask them .

 

[AdrenalineRush1996]

There to talk about all the Endgame stuff you want to ask them .

Hopefully they will.

 

[Yojimbo]

Article in Men's Health mentions Mackie initially signed a 10 movie deal.

 

[Frontier]

Article in Men's Health mentions Mackie initially signed a 10 movie deal.

Wasn't that also what Sebastian Stan was reported for as well?

So, counting how many he's been in...he should have about 4 more left on his current one unless he was already signed up for more.

(FYI, I counted Ant-Man and Age of Ultron).

 

[Yojimbo]

Wasn't that also what Sebastian Stan was reported for as well?

So, counting how many he's been in...he should have about 4 more left on his current one unless he was already signed up for more.

(FYI, I counted Ant-Man and Age of Ultron).

I think Stan's was nine. But still up there. Yeah, at least 4 more but the way they worded that seems to imply the deal was since been increased. Plus, appearances outside of the movies like Disney+ are probably a separate deal. Those two are sitting pretty.

EDIT: Neil Gaiman revealed he asked Marvel TV about making a Marvel 1602 TV series but they weren't interested.