Marvel Cinematic Universe

[EricJ]

Although it’s being painted as Disney asking for too much, this is squarely Sony's fault, and it will come back to bite them for being greedy.

Anyone else flashing back on Michael Eisner's "You NEED us, Pixar--Just try to leave and we'll do sequels!" and Bob Shaye's "So take your Hobbits to MGM, Peter...We're going to do 'Golden Compass'!"?

[Randall]

I have no faith in Sony to go it alone with Spidey. Venom looked awful, and all these other spin-offs they are planning sound ridiculous. Maybe we can get another decent Holland film out of all this, but Sony looks to be biting themselves in the butt. I can see how they thought Disney was demanding too much, but without Disney and Marvel, Sony is likely to blow it all. The last two Spidey films were hits largely BECAUSE of their tie-ins with the other MCU characters.

The biggest letdown for me would be losing Spidey from the MCU. I always loved seeing how he played off the other characters, in in the comics, cartoons, and MCU films.

Stupid Sony.

[James]

I'm betting this was leaked by Disney, who wanted to show Sony the fans would not like them going off on their own with the character. More proof of this is D23 starting this week. Disney is going to be showing off a lot of cool things and getting a lot of press in the coming days. Nothing Sony says this week (other than staying in the MCU) will get past the wall-to-wall Disney coverage.

[Ulenal]

Damn Tom is going to be pressed. I know he was always happy with their arrangement and working with Marvel Studios. God Spider-Man 3 is going to be so awkward. Like all of his suits are Stark made...they’re just going to dump all of Peter’s background and not mention Stark or Happy again?? Wow this is going to end up a huge mess going forward from a story telling standpoint.

[Daniel]

Welcome Principal Seymour Skinner/Tamzarian... I mean Ulenal!

I'm sure they could loophole a mention if need be if it this does materialize... it would just be a senseless tease.

Looks like Sony released a statement confirming the split is indeed happening. No good could come of this...

[Ben]

Well, we just all need to do a Solo on any Sony-only Spidey movies, right?

[EricJ]

Well, we just all need to do a Solo on any Sony-only Spidey movies, right?

Uh, think you're not quite understanding the metaphor, there--
We could do a Solo on "Morbius" (since nobody wanted spinoffs), and Captain Marvel may have done a Last Jedi on any future non-Avengers MCU, but I don't quite see how one can "do a Solo" on Sonyman 3.

[Ben]

Well, uh, it’s pretty simple. We just don’t turn up...?

I don’t get what’s not to understand about doing a Solo in that respect. Fairly obvious.

As for spinoffs? Spidey-Verse and Venom, to the tune of almost half a billion and almost a billion, respectively, proved that a lot of people out there are quite up for spinoffs.

Cap Marvel has killed off non-Avengers MCU movies? Tell that to those already gagging for Panther, Strange and Thor sequels. And the fans squeaking over The Eternals. The non-Avengers MCU is doing, and going to do, just fine.

So...again...I suggest we do a Solo on Sony's Spider-Man films. Once they flop they’ll be back to Kevin in no time.

It’s pretty simple logic that even a.....oh.

[Daniel]

JC Lee, daughter of Stan Lee, is siding with Sony in the dispute. She also has a few harsh words about the Mouse House. If true, pretty messed up about not reaching out after her fathers passing...

[ShyViolet]

Yeah, definitely. But not in the least surprising, IMHO.


(Even with all the beatings Eisner gets because of the Henson/Muppet deal, you have to acknowledge that immediately after Henson’s death in 1990 Eisner very strongly reached out to Henson’s children to give them emotional closure and still work out an agreement about Disney buying the Muppets. Maybe it ended up not working out (although as we know Eisner eventually did buy the Muppets about a decade later) but Eisner’s efforts to maintain a positive relationship with the Henson family were FAR MORE generous and honest than anything Iger would have done had he been dealing with the Hensons. (There’s no way of knowing this for sure, of course, but seeing how Disney currently treats guests, employees , and just about anyone who won’t tow the line like insignificant garbage, it’s not a huge stretch of the imagination.)

[EricJ]

(Even with all the beatings Eisner gets because of the Henson/Muppet deal, you have to acknowledge that immediately after Henson’s death in 1990 Eisner very strongly reached out to Henson’s children to give them emotional closure and still work out an agreement about Disney buying the Muppets. Maybe it ended up not working out (although as we know Eisner eventually did buy the Muppets about a decade later) but Eisner’s efforts to maintain a positive relationship with the Henson family were FAR MORE generous and honest than anything Iger would have done had he been dealing with the Hensons.

Eisner gets beatings because of the Henson Muppet deal (legend has it Eisner only wanted them because he was one of the many folk still unclear about who owned the marketing rights to the Sesame Street characters...Sor-ree, Mike!), but the sad truth is, Henson was also selling--
Jim Henson in the mid-80's was like Walt Disney in the mid-60's: He'd only gotten into puppetry as a gateway to getting into films, and liked the ability to make a film like "Dark Crystal", but began to feel the "kiddie" stuff with Kermit was holding him back. Like Walt started to become frustrated and neglect the animated movies while building neato new ideas for Disneyland, Henson wanted to end the Show characters and was an absentee landlord on "Fraggle Rock", while he wanted to devote more neato attention to "Labyrinth" becoming the movie-SFX flagship for the Creature Shop.
When that (ahem) didn't happen, he leapt back into marketing the one icon the studio did have. Henson's own comments on the deal praised Disney's ability to "keep great characters alive over the years", and like George Lucas's disenchantment with the Star Wars fans and prequels, he was probably grateful to have someone else do it FOR him.

...But it was the 90's/00's, and made a much better story to depict Eisner as the Evil Octopus, rather than Henson as the Disenchanted Sellout.
And certainly Jeffrey Katzenberg's dealings with Brian Henson were far less "generous" than Eisner's.

[Ben]

Um, Jim died in 1990. He wasn’t around in the 00s. By then the story had moved on. A German company owned The Muppets for a while, since the Henson kids stopped Jim's deal with Disney going through, fearing they would not have creative control (and, honestly, not as much revenue coming to them).

Ironically, had they gone with Disney then, they probably would have made more, since Disney would have put all might behind them. Eisner, to be fair, not only saw a deal to be made but did also have a genuine want to see the characters protected and remain viable, ever since knowing Jim back at ABC.

Instead, they cooled off Disney and sold to the Germans, who didn’t know what to do with them or how to market anything (the company no longer exists in the same form) and diminished their creative input anyway. A series of bad deals left the characters even worse off than they would have been at Disney's, markedly reducing their value.

They eventually bought everything back themselves, but by then it was too late. Bad film and TV attempts didn’t help, so they went back to Disney who quite rightfully bought them for a song but has struggled to largely undo the damage done by the kids not simply selling in the first place.

They would have had continued involvement post Christmas Carol and Treasure Island (a Wonderland film had been mooted) and the protection of Eisner for another ten years plus, without the doldrums of the late 90s/early 00s.

And maybe...just maybe...we wouldn’t have seen Brian have to sink so low as to pee all over his Dad's legacy and even think about wanting to make total crap like that McCarthy abomination.

(No, I haven’t seen it. It may well have one funny joke in it. But I saw enough of Sausage Party to know that these things are not nearly as clever or funny as they think they are.)

[Daniel]

If this is to be believed, Tom could choose to opt out of a 3rd Spidey movie. Wouldn't surprise if he doesn't, could maybe force an agreement.

Imagine if it does get the reboot treatment again, they'll have to get pretty creative. If I were in their position, I would have it so Spidey wakes up and everything we saw happen was a just dream. And when we finally see him revealed, it ends up being Andrew Garfield! Just might be crazy enough to work... despite loosing Tom, who's probably the best thing to come out of the recent films.

[gaastra]

Ms marvel show coming to Disney plus. There goes the ms marvel movie.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat- ... eakingnews

[Ben]

If this is to be believed, Tom could choose to opt out of a 3rd Spidey movie.

This is what I understand. A third film has to be agreed on all sides, including Marvel, even if that means they don’t actually make it. But Holland is under contract to Marvel, with an *option* to be in Sony movies. As I understand it, Marvel could also veto Holland being in a Sony movie, because that was agreed as a way of protecting the MCU from if Sony's movies tarnished their brand. Conversely, it was feasible, if unlikely, that Holland could be loaned to Sony for cameos in their movies, but that was back when everyone was happy and friendly. At the end of the day, it was Marvel who cast Holland and had approval on the movies.

They could still keep Holland to themselves and maybe just have him become another character...!? Iron-Boy?