devilshalo

And I have no dog in this fight anymore. My bonus going forward is with SCA, of which Spidey/SPE would be just a small part.

Decker

Is 100% of the profits from the next Tom Holland Spider-Man movie with no ties to the MCU better than 50% of the profits of one appearances by Samuel L. Jackson and Jon Favreau? I would say probably so.

Deftones

I guess we'll find out once it comes out. My guess is, in the short-term, probably. In the long-term, not a chance.

devilshalo

Sure, but again, where would Peter be in Phase 4? How long do you sit your star on the sidelines just to be part of the team? What's funny about comparing it to Skyfall is that... we only got 25% of that take.. yeah, MGM got the bigger piece of that pie.. Quantum Of Solace was the last sole Sony produced Bond. If the next 2 Spidey's prove profitable, then maybe he can rejoin the MCU at the right time, but to sit and wait on their schedule is preposterous.

Deftones

But if rumors are true, he only has like 1 or 2 more appearances as Spider-man anyway, right? If that is true, Phase 4 isn't going to matter much, because there doesn't appear to be an Avengers movie or any other movie that he might make an appearance in (at this point). Sure, they could shove him in something, but none of the upcoming movies really make a ton of sense given the focus of each of them. This gives Sony 3 years to get another Spider-Man movie out, then allow him to be in any team-up in Phase 5. I don't think Marvel has the intention of parking Spider-Man for the next 3+ years. They recognize he is one of, if not the most, popular characters.

Red Hood

Sony has proven time and time again that they are fucking stupid when it comes to doing comic book movies on their own. Spider-Man 3 with Tobey, both Ghost Riders, Amazing Spider-Man 2 with Jamie Foxx playing a moronic Electro, a mediocre Venom, a very bad Men in Black 4, and they have some stand alone films in production like Morbius, Silver Sable and Black Cat which will most likely turn out to be like Halle Berry's Catwoman. It's pretty clear that Sony wants to ride the cash wave of the comic book film era without actually investing in good scripts themselves. They lost the rights to Ghost Rider cause they couldn't do shit with him and the only reason their Spider-Man movies were successful was because of their tie-in with the MCU and a better script (though they weren't great). I mean, Ned is basically Ganke from the Miles Morales books and the MJ character isn't good at all. Why would Sony fuck this relationship up instead of playing ball for years to come? Yes, they hold the cards by owning the Spider-Man films rights but they are fucking themselves in the long-run. Sony already lost the rights to Spider-Man and his world of characters for TV. I could see now Marvel pulling the plug on any future Insomniac (which Sony just purchased this weekend) video games and taking away one of the biggest sellers the Playstation ever had. I can also see a mandate from Marvel to stop creating new characters in the Spider-Man world in comic books, so characters like Spider-Gwen and Miles Morales would be limited to what has been created in the past 8 years. Sony has more to lose than Marvel on this and Feige new it. KF has 23 straight box office successes and counting at Marvel and now he owns the X-Men (with Wolverine and Deadpool) and the Fantastic Four. Next Venom movie bombs, and guess what, Sony is back to square one.

DthRdrX

This is a lose/lose for Sony. Either give up profit to Disney or risk fan backlash bc their is so much goodwill towards Marvel.

I bet they WANT Disney to make an offer on the character rights.

devilshalo

Which is why Sony would rather take the reigns now, walk on the Marvel deal and use Holland for the next films without adhering to the MCU schedule and their pay demands and then be done. And hopefully in that time, they can introduce the live action Miles Morales or Spider-Gwen (or even Miguel O'Hara). The biggest thing that Marvel has done for the Sony Spider-man franchise is force them to use Holland. Because Tom's turned out to be fantastic.

devilshalo

Square one made $403,706,375 domestically on fewer screens than FFH made.

Michael Corvin

Who needs Disney? Give me a live action Spider-verse with Tobey Macguire, Garfield, & Holland and introduce Miles and Spider-Gwen.

Double_Oh_7

Was the Sony/Disney deal only for two films? Or did Disney try renegotiating after the huge success of Far From Home?

Troy Stiffler

DthRdrX

And watch as it gets treated by the public the same way The Fantastic Four reboot did.

Red Hood

That was when there wasn't any Spider-Man films done prior and the comic book film industry was starting its boom. Now there are 8 other Spider-Man films to compare them with plus over 100 comic book films and TV shows. Like I said, see what Sony did with Venom and expect that or worse with a Sony-only Spider-Man film. Or better yet, see what they did with Amazing Spider-Man 2, which made Electro seem like he came out from the Batman and Robin movie.

RichC2

Seems like everybody loses.

Artman

Five films (Civil War, Avengers3/4, Spidey 1/2) I'm not sure who's to blame for this... we'll just have to wait for more details. Disney very well may have asked for a much higher % of profits of the Spider-man films - which are Sony productions.

Mike86

Groucho

Time for another reboot! Get the kid from "Young Sheldon" in there as Peter Parker, and start filming yet another recreation of Uncle Ben being shot.

Josh-da-man

I wonder if they couldn't have reached some kind of deal where Sony lets Marvel have the 50/50 Spider-Man deal, but on the condition that all of the Spiderverse movies Sony is looking at (Kraven, Morbius, Sinister Six, Silver & Black, etc) go under a deal (maybe using the old 5% goes to Disney terms from the Spider-Man movies) that makes them fully canon with the MCU so they can be co-branded with the greater MCU and trade characters back and forth. Which would mean Hawkeye or Winter Soldier could show up in Silver & Black, or Maria Hill could be in Sinister Six. Such a deal would also allow them to use Spider-Man in these movies, though not as the main character (maybe even only in costume, with Holland only providing the voice). Then guarantee Sony one Spiderverse movie a year for five or six years.

They would be losing half of the Spider-Man revenue, but they would also be able to piggyback all of the Spiderverse films on the MCU while still pocketing a decent chunk of Spider-Man's revenue.

Wonder if either side would have gone for something like this.

DJariya

One movie pundit I follow thinks that this is Disney's doing and they are the ones sabotaging their relationship with Sony by changing the terms of their deal.

Michael Corvin

Even the much derided Amazing Spider-man movies grossed over $1.5 billion combined.

Spider-man made shit tons of money prior to Feige and the MCU and will do so again. Some of you need to step away from the ledge.

gmanca

Red Hood

Use Jim Parsons as Uncle Ben! Do I hear the money train?

Red Hood

The overall feeling online is that Sony fucked up but if they continue and go forward with a new Spider-Man movie without Marvel, the backlash they'll receive will pale in comparison to the one Fox got after their last shitty FF movie. Sony doesn't want to be on the receiving end of scorned comic book fans.

dsa_shea

Sony birthed the child and is pissed that another family raised him up to be a better adult. They want all of the accolades without the work. I say the 50/50 split is fair if Disney covers all of the costs of making the movie. Sony taking 95% of half of the haul of what the Marvel/Disney studios are cranking out is about what they would make with taking 50%.