[Movies] MCU: Phase 3 And Beyond
- Thread starter BananaHands
- Start date
Right now Disney gets full creative control of the Spider-man movies, but Sony does full financing and inherits all the risk. Disney then gets 5% of all profits.
What Disney wants to change is they want to split both the financing and profits 50/50, sharing more of the risk and thus sharing in the profits. If the movies do subpar this is better for Sony, but if it makes head over heel profits like most MCU movies, it's worst for them.
Supposedly, Disney also wanted this deal on all Marvel based movie properties like Venom, and considering Sony gets 100% of the profit on those movies, was likely where the biggest point of contention sits.
What Disney wants to change is they want to split both the financing and profits 50/50, sharing more of the risk and thus sharing in the profits. If the movies do subpar this is better for Sony, but if it makes head over heel profits like most MCU movies, it's worst for them.
Supposedly, Disney also wanted this deal on all Marvel based movie properties like Venom, and considering Sony gets 100% of the profit on those movies, was likely where the biggest point of contention sits.
Even bad Spider-man movies make bank. Disney wanted too much and now they get to eat humble pie.
I'm not saying Sony's movies will be better, but it made sense to do this.
I'm not saying Sony's movies will be better, but it made sense to do this.
figmentPez
Staff member
Nope. Both of the Tom Holland movies had Kevin Feige as the main creative force. Apparently Feige also worked as a main producer/advisor on ItSV as well, but he agreed to be uncredited. In other words the only quality Spider-man movies Sony has made in the last few years were because of Feige’s guidance. They’re going to regret this when the quality goes to shit.
But then again Venom’s success showed people are stupid and will watch anything, so maybe Sony is right.
All I said was that even the bad ones make money, nothing about creative force or positive quality, so I'm confused.
Monetarily, this made sense rather than give Disney so much money.
On one hand, yes, they would have to give Disney more money in the end. But Disney would have been taking on 50% of the production costs, so Sony would have far less to invest to see a high return. I can see why Sony saw the $$$ from their most successful film ever and decided they wanted to be greedy instead of remembering how they got it in the first place. And now that they have the proven star power of Tom Holland, they don't even have to worry if they put out an inferior film (which is my worry, honestly).
Or this could be just another negotiation tactic to use fan outcry to make a deal.
Or this could be just another negotiation tactic to use fan outcry to make a deal.
I’m disagreeing with the idea that it made sense, but halfway through writing the post I realized that it makes money no matter the quality. Sorry if it was confusing.
I don't see how they thought this would be a good idea if it was. People are furious at Sony for fucking up, not Disney for being greedy.
I think it’s just that people are preemptively angry that they’re not getting enough pictures of Spider-Man.
—Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
The best take on this I've seen:
figmentPez
Staff member
The point seems to have gone completely over your head. It's not saying that "the law says...", it's pointing out that "the law should say..." because copyright terms are much longer than they should be.
Shoulda woulda coulda. That's not the law, that will never be the law, and it's probably best that it is never the law.
FWIW I agree that copyright terms are broken and need to come down. I’ve even said that multiple times before and haven’t changed my stance.
And while I agree that “should” in the tweet can be taken as a “deserves to be” meaning, my initial read interpreted “should be PD by now” to mean more like an assumption that: “sufficient time has elapsed that I believe S-M is now PD,” which is unfortunately incorrect.
English - ruining communication going back a dozen generations and more.
—Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
Butler's ham was pretty great...
Well, I didn't say it was for Sony. If reports are to be believed, Sony walked away from Disney, Disney leaked the result, people are pissed at Sony. In theory, it might motivate Sony to come back to the bargaining table, but who knows.
Sony of Japan already HATES Sony of America. They were the ones who made the original deal happen, after the massive hack and SoA being unable to turn a profit on anything for years. I wouldn't be surprised if they stepped in again.
Hey
Well I guess that's pretty cool
!!!!!!!! It's really happening, not a rumor, not a hallucination--
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Well I guess that's pretty cool
!!!!!!!! It's really happening, not a rumor, not a hallucination--
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
And I don't think Disney are doing what CBS did with Discovery & licensing these shows to Netflix in areas outside the US & Canada where Disney+ isn't launching at first.
I am super-excited for Ms. Marvel. That alone would make me go <fry meme> if I was still on the fence. The promise of more Peggy Carter and Ewan Macgregor was a pure cherry on the Disneygasm sundae.
I can completely understand that Disney+ isn't really for everyone, but they're been enough stuff announced at the launch for everyone in our household that it may get used more than our other streaming sevices.
I can completely understand that Disney+ isn't really for everyone, but they're been enough stuff announced at the launch for everyone in our household that it may get used more than our other streaming sevices.
GasBandit
Staff member
Disney and Sony made up. Spider-Man's back in.
Damn, I'm going to end up wanting Disney+ with that kind of line up.
figmentPez
Staff member
Damn, I'm going to end up wanting Disney+ with that kind of line up.
Is there an echo in here?
Phone was acting up, guess this is the result