Quantcast
Spider-Man no longer in the MCU after disagreement between Sony and Disney (UPDATE #2): Sony releases statement

Forums - Movies Discussion - Spider-Man no longer in the MCU after disagreement between Sony and Disney (UPDATE #2): Sony releases statement

The_Yoda said:
COKTOE said:

I'm not sure what you're seeing that I'm not. The article headline: Avengers star Jeremy Renner slams Sony over fued with Disney, Marvel, may be overstating the matter, but it's not inaccurate in presenting his take as to to who's at fault. He puts the onus for Spider-Man's exit from the MCU squarely on Sony. And whether or not it's him or his publicist is irrelavant. The name of his Twitter account is renner4real. If he can't back up what he says on twitter because his gacked-up publicist wrote it, he should change his name to something more ambiguous. Too bad punctuation isn't allowed in handles. renner4real? would fit the bill.

It's what you're seeing that I'm not ... Sorry that headline is click-bait so I am only looking at the tweet roughly translated as:

"Hey Sony we want Spider-Man back please and thank you: congrats, spiderman is awesome, I'm Fucking Hawkeye Bitches, Please?"  Not really a slam more of a plead and a shout out by my interpretation. 

And you're right at the very least he has either written it himself or authorized someone to speak for him so it can be considered at the very least to have come from his camp.

I'm not sure what else to do in getting across that Renner is pointing the finger at Sony as the sole culprit in the events that lead to the parting of ways. No mention of Disney/Marvel's culpability.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

The_Yoda said:
COKTOE said:

Boom Roasted. Also, his daughter looks like Celine Dion.

That is Celine Dion = Fake news

lol. that's his daughter, Joan Celia Lee.



COKTOE said:
deskpro2k3 said:

Stan Lee's daughter just put Marvel and Disney on blast.. And I'm talkin bullhorn blast..

Source: https://www.tmz.com/2019/08/22/stan-lee-daughter-sony-disney-spiderman-marvel/

More Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/22/stan-lees-daughter-sides-with-sony-in-spider-man-spat-with-disney.html

Sony's move to limit control over 'Spider-Man' -- and potentially remove the superhero entirely from Disney's Marvel Comic Universe -- is one that was necessary and something Stan would have appreciated ... so says his daughter, Joan Celia (JC) Lee.

"Marvel and Disney seeking total control of my father's creations must be checked and balanced by others who, while still seeking to profit, have genuine respect for Stan Lee and his legacy."

"Whether it's Sony or someone else's, the continued evolution of Stan's characters and his legacy deserves multiple points of view."

“When my father died, no one from Marvel or Disney reached out to me. From day one, they have commoditized my father’s work and never shown him or his legacy any respect or decency.”

JC's parting words ... "In the end, no one could have treated my father worse than Marvel and Disney's executives."

Boom Roasted. Also, his daughter looks like Celine Dion.

Absolutely roasted. Also my first thoughts as well lol. I hope this news goes around Twitter and Instagram.



COKTOE said:
The_Yoda said:

It's what you're seeing that I'm not ... Sorry that headline is click-bait so I am only looking at the tweet roughly translated as:

"Hey Sony we want Spider-Man back please and thank you: congrats, spiderman is awesome, I'm Fucking Hawkeye Bitches, Please?"  Not really a slam more of a plead and a shout out by my interpretation. 

And you're right at the very least he has either written it himself or authorized someone to speak for him so it can be considered at the very least to have come from his camp.

I'm not sure what else to do in getting across that Renner is pointing the finger at Sony as the sole culprit in the events that lead to the parting of ways. No mention of Disney/Marvel's culpability.

I think we are just interpreting it differently. 

Sony legally holds the Spider-Man movie card.  If my buddy (Disney) asks to borrow his mom's car (Sony's Spider-Man) and she says no I don't plead with my buddy or point the finger at him (I might not be along for the ride if he manages to change her mind) , instead I try to appeal to his mother. If I were him I wouldn't be pointing a finger at either studio since either one might employee me in the future, again though that is if I were him.

It just feels like you're reading too much into it (i.e. influenced by the article's title), perhaps though I'm just not reading enough into it.



The_Yoda said:
COKTOE said:

I'm not sure what else to do in getting across that Renner is pointing the finger at Sony as the sole culprit in the events that lead to the parting of ways. No mention of Disney/Marvel's culpability.

I think we are just interpreting it differently. 

Sony legally holds the Spider-Man movie card.  If my buddy (Disney) asks to borrow his mom's car (Sony's Spider-Man) and she says no I don't plead with my buddy or point the finger at him (I might not be along for the ride if he manages to change her mind) , instead I try to appeal to his mother. If I were him I wouldn't be pointing a finger at either studio since either one might employee me in the future, again though that is if I were him.

It just feels like you're reading too much into it (i.e. influenced by the article's title), perhaps though I'm just not reading enough into it.

I don't know Yoda...I like you and all, but I think at this point we should make arrangements to wrestle in a parking lot.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

COKTOE said:
The_Yoda said:

I think we are just interpreting it differently. 

Sony legally holds the Spider-Man movie card.  If my buddy (Disney) asks to borrow his mom's car (Sony's Spider-Man) and she says no I don't plead with my buddy or point the finger at him (I might not be along for the ride if he manages to change her mind) , instead I try to appeal to his mother. If I were him I wouldn't be pointing a finger at either studio since either one might employee me in the future, again though that is if I were him.

It just feels like you're reading too much into it (i.e. influenced by the article's title), perhaps though I'm just not reading enough into it.

I don't know Yoda...I like you and all, but I think at this point we should make arrangements to wrestle in a parking lot.

South side Denny's at 1AM loser buys breakfast.

Edit: for the record I agree that this was a reach by Disney, not really debating that nor Sony turning them down. %50 risk / 50% reward < 100% risk / 100% reward when you're talking about an almost sure thing like a hot franchise.  That said I hope all these Studio's fail in the end to produce the movies in time to keep their lease on these characters and all the movie rights revert back to a Marvel that is in a position to be able to make movies with them.  I think it will just be a long ass time.  It is more likely that the House of Mouse will just have to buy the other studios licenses out if they want to make an MCU with ALL of Marvel's characters in play. Of course who knows I didn't figure I'd live to see Mutants come back into the fold either but here we are.

Last edited by The_Yoda - on 22 August 2019

The_Yoda said:
COKTOE said:

I'm not sure what else to do in getting across that Renner is pointing the finger at Sony as the sole culprit in the events that lead to the parting of ways. No mention of Disney/Marvel's culpability.

I think we are just interpreting it differently. 

Sony legally holds the Spider-Man movie card.  If my buddy (Disney) asks to borrow his mom's car (Sony's Spider-Man) and she says no I don't plead with my buddy or point the finger at him (I might not be along for the ride if he manages to change her mind) , instead I try to appeal to his mother. If I were him I wouldn't be pointing a finger at either studio since either one might employee me in the future, again though that is if I were him.

It just feels like you're reading too much into it (i.e. influenced by the article's title), perhaps though I'm just not reading enough into it.

Probably the reading to much comes from most twitter and outlets treating it as Sony fault and people are very metoo nowadays to avoid going against mass?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Disney, the first studio to have 5 $1 Billion Dollar grossing movies in a year. See's Spiderman:

They want 6!



Predictions (Made July 2019)

LTD: PS4 - 130m, Switch - 110m, XBO - 52m       2019 : PS4 - 15m, Switch - 18.8m, XBO - 4.8m        2020: Switch - 22m (Peak Year)

It looks like Sony/Marvel may be getting a new Spidey deal after all.

SOURCE

TOM HOLLAND TEASES SPIDER-MAN DEAL WITH ROBERT DOWNEY JR.

Tom Holland may have just confirmed a new Spider-Man deal as the 23-year-old actor took to social media to post images of himself with Robert Downey Jr.

"We did it Mr Stark!" Holland posted on Instagram which also includes images of the pair holding Iron Man and Spider-Man action figures.

Regarding Robert Downey Jr., more than likely he didn't sign a new deal for Iron Man, as the character died in Avengers: Endgame, but it's guessed Downey Jr. serves as a sort of mentor role for the young Tom Holland, so possibly Robert Downey Jr. may have aided or had a hand in the negotiations between Disney and Sony and Tom Holland.

Tom Holland back as Spider-Man within the MCU?

Regarding the Spider-Man deal, recently saw talks between Disney and Sony fall through over keeping Spider-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Disney and Sony couldn't agree on a new deal, so it has been reported Spider-Man will be back with Sony and will no longer appear in any MCU or Avengers movies, with Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige also no longer involved.

The dispute is said to have been over money, as Disney wanted a better percentage of the profits, but Sony wanted to keep their original deal, which saw Disney only getting reportedly 5% of the box office, but getting all the merchandising rights. Disney responded they wanted to cover 50% of production costs and split profits 50/50 as well, but Sony turned down that offer.

Talks have been said to be ongoing between the two studios, so assuming this post by Tom Holland on Instagram is anything to go by (otherwise it's a huge, huge troll move), Disney and Sony have come to a new deal over keeping Spider-Man in the MCU.

Regarding the new deal, I recently posted a batch of rumors that offered Tom Holland will be starring in upwards of seven movies including more Avengersfilms with it said he will be teaming with new characters, including characters from the Fantastic Four and the X-Men.

It's thought if the deal has indeed gone through, that something Spider-Man related will be at Saturday's big Marvel panel at the Disney D23 Expo.

Assuming these pictures of Tom Holland and Robert Downey Jr. are taken recently, it does seem as if Holland is in California, as the D23 Expo takes place this weekend in Anaheim, California.

Update: Robert Downey Jr. made a surprise visit at the Rolling Stones concert earlier tonight at the Rose Bowl, which is held in Pasadena California.

So this looks like good news for the Spider-Man and MCU fans.

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏


konnichiwa said:


Spiderman should have been a public domain character by now but Disney lobbied against it

HylianSwordsman said:
Not gonna lie, I don't care whose fault it is, I just want to see all Marvel properties and IPs controlled by one corporate entity. Doesn't have to be Disney, but if they can get it done, fine. Tired of seeing Spiderman separated from the rest like this. Better yet, actually, if I had a magic wand, I'd put all Marvel IPs into the public domain. Then I could actually enjoy every company's attempt at a cinematic universe, all in one lifetime.

That's actually a good point. Spider-Man is now a 57-year-old IP, the first Spidey comic having been published in 1962. Originally, copyright terms in the U.S. lasted for 14 years with an option to renew for a second 14-year term for a maximum possible total of 28 years. In 1831 the initial term was extended to 28 years, with the optional renewal term remaining unchanged, putting the maximum total at 42 years. Then in 1909 the renewal term was also extended to 28 years, putting the maximum possible copyright duration at 56 years (one year less than how long Spider-Man has been around). It took 119 years for copyright terms to double from the original limits set in 1790. Now, I can get that to an extent. People were living longer than they were in 1790, etc. Still, 56 years was more than enough time to profit off of ones art, music, or other IP. That would essentially last you almost your entire adult life. Write a book or song at age 25, it goes into the public domain when you're 81. Under such a law, anything published in 1963 or earlier would now be part of the public domain. Of course, that's not what happened, as the terms did not stay fixed at 28+28 years.

As IP started to get more corporate in nature as the 20th century progressed, even 56 years wasn't good enough for some, and in the last quarter of the century we started to see even greater expansion in copyright terms. You see, the Constitution says that Congress has the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries," but doesn't specify what "limited times" meant. Well, some corporations had some key IPs that were soon due to enter the public domain, and they got it in their heads that anything less than infinity could be construed as a "limited time," so they wanted to see copyright terms extended to keep those works from entering the public domain, essentially moving the goalposts. After two more copyright term extensions, one in 1976 and another in 1998, copyright terms now last for either 95 years after publication for works of "corporate authorship" (which covers most films and video games) or for the life of the author plus 70 years for works of individual authorship. This means that most works created within our lifetimes will likely not enter the public domain before we are dead. For example, Back to the Future will not enter the public domain under current law until I am 100 years old. In the Eldred v. Ashcroft, which came about in response to the 1998 copyright term extension, the Supreme Court effectively ruled that such laws were constitutional as they still defined a limited term. In other words, the letter of the law was upheld, even though the spirit of the law was not.

Steamboat Willie, and thus Mickey Mouse himself, will lapse into the public domain in 2023 under current law, as will Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs just 9 years later. Superman and Batman will do so in 1938 and 1939 respectively. The oldest Looney Tunes are due to enter the public domain soon, starting with Bosko in 2024, followed by Porky Pig in 2030, Daffy Duck in 2032, and Bugs Bunny in 2035. I fully expect Disney and Warner Bros will soon start to petition Congress for yet another copyright term extension. They'll probably get it, and at that point they might as well argue for copyright terms of 1000 years. That's still a "limited term," and it would save them from having to go back to Congress every 20-25 years to lobby for yet another copyright term extension to keep their properties from entering the public domain.

IMO, copyright terms have become a farce. The terms of the 1909 Copyright Act should have been the end of it. 56 years is more than enough time to profit off of a work. We need a new Copyright Act, one that seeks to defend the public domain against large publishers and movie studios who see copyright as a perpetual moneymaking scheme. The terms of the 1976 and 1998 acts should be repealed, bringing it back to the terms closer to the 1909 act, maybe something with a more round number like 25+25 years. To be generous, any existing works still under copyright would start off at "year zero," meaning they get the automatic 25-year first term, with the option for another 25-year term following it, though only if they were less than 25 years old at the time of the law's passage. The new law should mandate that the terms cannot be retroactively extended bunder any circumstances, and the matter should be removed from the hands of the Supreme Court through jurisdiction stripping as per Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Furthermore, a "use it or lose it" provision needs to be added that specifies that individual works that are out-of-print or otherwise essentially abandoned, ignored, and/or unpublished by the IP holder (assuming they still exist) should automatically enter the public domain within 10 years of the production of the final copy of the work (meaning that, for example, the Scott Pilgrim video game would enter the public domain in 2024).

The law should go back to its intended purpose, that is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," and not be a means for large corporations to continue making money into perpetuity, or for the survivors of dead authors to profit off said author's work for decades after their death.

CGP Grey had a good video on this subject as well: