Spiderman is [no longer] out of the MCU

[Mecca]

https://deadline.com/2019/08/kevin-f...er-1202672545/

It was fun while it lasted, but Sony once again is stupid and has cancelled this deal. Might as well call it Sony hates money.

[WhawhaWhat]

Originally Posted by Superturtle

This version of Spider Man won't make much sense if the MCU components are cut out. I guess you can retcon Uncle Ben as his primary motivator/mentor but we've already spent 5 movies setting up Tony Stark as that figure. Hell, all of his equipment is Stark based tech. This is going to be weird, and Sony having to write their way out of it doesn't seem feasible given their track record.

In the comics, Tony Stark lets it slip that he knows about Peter's spider-sense after he gives Peter the Stark-tech Spidey Suit. Spider-man realizes that the suit is analyzing him and sending that info back to Tony Stark so he gets rid of it. That could easily be done in this universe too.

[WhawhaWhat]

https://deadline.com/2019/08/kevin-f...er-1202672545/

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.

If Sony is building their own 'Spider-verse', I can see why they wouldn't want to give half of that money to Disney.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat

In the comics, Tony Stark lets it slip that he knows about Peter's spider-sense after he gives Peter the Stark-tech Spidey Suit. Spider-man realizes that the suit is analyzing him and sending that info back to Tony Stark so he gets rid of it. That could easily be done in this universe too.

You mean his Peter-tingle?

[Direckshun]

There's just too much money in these MCU Spider-Man films for this to fully die. Surely they'll work out a deal.

They're going to have to do a hell of a heel-turn, though, narratively, if Spidey is gone. It was clear in Far From Home that they were setting him up to be the central figure of the MCU going forward.

I think the central Stark/Cap/Thor trio was planned, in phase 4, to be replaced by Spidey/T'Challa/Danvers. I *think*.

But make no mistake -- and this is where I disagree with DJLN -- the MCU is going to continue printing money. Thor 4 will rake it in. Strange 2 will rake it in. Black Panther 2 will rake it in. Captain Marvel 2 will rake it in. GOTG 3 will rake it in. They'll keep dipping their toes into new properties, and keep trying new stuff. Some of it will sink (like, relatively, the Ant-Man movies) and some of it will strike gold. And the machine will churn on.

But narratively, the entire MCU benefits sooooooo much from Tom Holland's Spidey, and both companies make stupid money off of him. There's no way they're going to just bury him without milking him Stark-style for another 5 movies.

[Direckshun]

The thing I think may harm the MCU's longterm profit margin are the Disney series with Loki, WandaVision, and Falcon/Bucky.

With those shows ongoing featuring central characters, the maintenance of having to keep up with the MCU is going to increase. I think one of the reasons the MCU has thrived is because they come out basically twice a year, which (a.) forces fans to wait, but more importantly (b.) makes keeping up with the MCU low-effort.

[crayzkirk]

There's enough money to go around. I liked it better when Spiderman was separate from the MCU; the whole Tony Stark/Spiderman thing doesn't feel right to me. The character is interesting enough without needing Tony Stark. Deadpool seems to be doing fine on his own and they managed to tank the X-Men. I can see separate worlds where each can exist and do fine.

Tony/Steve/Thor were my main interests. Natasha/Hawkey/Hulk/etc. are nice sidekicks.

I'm a bit overloaded and the PG-13 ratings are having trouble holding my interest.

[Gravedigger]

It'd be funny if Tom Holland didn't sign on to be Spiderman anymore due to this and Sony had to recast Spiderman yet again, and fall on their faces with the fans.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by Sure-Oz

This feels over.

@Borys_Kit: EXCLUSIVE: SPIDER-MAN divorce goes up a level as Sony responds, says it's Disney's decision to end partnership. "We are disappointed." https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...r_breakingnews

I think they're just pulling an Eric Berry and bringing the public into the negotiating table. After Far From Home and the plan for Spidey to be Iron Man's heir apparent Sony has more leverage than they've had for a long time... especially if Disney wants half of the profits.

[WhawhaWhat]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

I think they're just pulling an Eric Berry and bringing the public into the negotiating table. After Far From Home and the plan for Spidey to be Iron Man's heir apparent Sony has more leverage than they've had for a long time... especially if Disney wants half of the profits.

and not just half of Spider-man, they alledgedly wanted half of Venom, Kraven, Morbius and any other movie that involves Spider-man characters as well.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat

and not just half of Spider-man, they alledgedly wanted half of Venom, Kraven, Morbius and any other movie that involves Spider-man characters as well.

Yea but didn't they also offer to put money in thus taking a risk as well? Where as with the last 2 they were Sony funded so Marvel had no risk.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Yea but didn't they also offer to put money in thus taking a risk as well? Where as with the last 2 they were Sony funded so Marvel had no risk.

Yeah, I was about to point this out. They want a 50/50 co-production, so they'd be paying half the budget as well.

[Simply Red]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah, if anyone wants to disagree with anything I said there, I'll defer. I know **** all about this apart from some back of the napkin calculations I could find.

But it certainly appears that Disney is asking for a WAY bigger cut. And that it was big enough for Sony to justify taking a pretty big risk in walking away.

That means something.

Exactly this.

[WhawhaWhat]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Yea but didn't they also offer to put money in thus taking a risk as well? Where as with the last 2 they were Sony funded so Marvel had no risk.

Disney had no risk but also only got 5%. Now Disney wants 50% of the risk for 50% of the profit. If you take a movie like Venom and put the Disney deal in place, then Sony loses hundreds of millions.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat

Disney had no risk but also only got 5%. Now Disney wants 50% of the risk for 50% of the profit. If you take a movie like Venom and put the Disney deal in place, then Sony loses hundreds of millions.

What am I missing?

If Disney has half the risk, I’d take that to mean half the expense. If they have half the expense and get half of the revenue, the margin would be better than giving away 5% of the net.

Meaning that if it made money Sony would get less. If it lost money Sony would lose less. It wouldn’t take a profitable movie and make it unprofitable.

50% income - 50% expense = net

Vs

100% income - 100% expense = net -5%

So what am I missing?

[Setsuna]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

What am I missing?

If Disney has half the risk, I’d take that to mean half the expense. If they have half the expense and get half of the revenue, the margin would be better than giving away 5% of the net.

Meaning that if it made money Sony would get less. If it lost money Sony would lose less. It wouldn’t take a profitable movie and make it unprofitable.

50% income - 50% expense = net

Vs

100% income - 100% expense = net -5%

So what am I missing?

Bear in mind Disney is still making 100% of profits off of merchandising. So this is about Disney being greedy.