DVDizzy Forum

Stan Lee's daughter: 'No one could have treated my father worse than Marvel and Disney's executives'
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/08/22/sta ... isney.html

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/spid ... 203311351/

Several insiders said Sony Pictures chief Tom Rothman was willing to give up as much as roughly 25% of the franchise and welcome Disney in as a co-financing partner in exchange for Feige’s services.

One insider said that Disney was partly motivated to walk away from the negotiations because it wants Feige’s full attention on the newly-acquired Fox properties. After “X-Men: Dark Phoenix” bombed, one person familiar with Walt Disney Studios said co-chairman Alan Bergman insisted talks with Sony end. Another insider disputed “Dark Phoenix” as a motivator, but said “Bergman led the charge on the Spider-Man deal.

Deadline is contradicting Variety's report and claims that Disney is the one who wanted a 25% stake but Sony wouldn't agree. ~insert 'so what is the truth' gif~

I continue to hear that Disney asked for a 25% stake where it would finance that much of the movie and receive that much of the equity upside.

Source: https://deadline.com/2019/08/spider-man ... 202702851/

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/08/24 ... ng-the-mcu

“Basically, we’ve made five great movies,” Holland said in a chat with Entertainment Weekly. “It’s been five amazing years. I’ve had the time of my life. Who knows what the future holds? But all I know is that I’m going to continue playing Spider-Man and having the time of my life. It’s going to be so fun, however we choose to do it."

Holland added, "The future for Spider-Man will be different, but it will be equally as awesome and amazing, and we’ll find new ways to make it even cooler.”

The article has some words from Kevin Feige, too.

I'm glad to hear that Tom Holland is putting on an enthusiastic front because I know it was a dream come true to work with his fellow MCU actors and it must be so hard to be torn away from that now.

blackcauldron85 wrote:Stan Lee's daughter: 'No one could have treated my father worse than Marvel and Disney's executives'
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/08/22/sta ... isney.html

There is no doubt that Marvel saved a lot of Money when Lee signed away his rights.

https://www.vulture.com/2016/02/stan-le ... c-v-r.html

In 1998, bankruptcy proceedings voided Lee’s contract with Marvel and, after some tense negotiations, he negotiated an extremely lucrative new agreement: an $810,000 annual salary just for being a figurehead, 50 percent of his base salary as an annual pension for his wife, and 10 percent of any profits Marvel would ever make off of movies and TV. He could have used the money to settle into easy elder-statesmanship, even if Marvel never took over Hollywood like we now know it would.

https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/n ... el-lawsuit

Stan Lee, the creative force behind Spider-Man and the X-Men, has won a lawsuit against Marvel Enterprises over the company's failure to pay him a share of the profits due from recent successful superhero movies.

According to the ruling, from Judge Robert Sweet of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Marvel broke an agreement to pay Lee 10% of any profit it receives from movies, television, or other uses of his characters. Marvel had argued that the 10% figure should be calculated after significant deductions.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/featu ... ses-912577

"I was stupid in a business way," he admits. "I should have been greedier." Throughout all of Marvel's financial ups and downs over the decades — it has been bought and sold a dozen times — Lee, who never was an owner, failed to cash in, at least in a big way. He concedes he signed deals he shouldn't have, like the one in 1998 in which he traded away his movie points for a reported $10 million (plus about a million a year for life).

Had Lee kept his points, it's hard to fathom how much he'd be worth now. The three Iron Man movies alone have made $2.4 billion worldwide.

Lee sued Marvel in 2002, and won in 2005. For $10 million plus one million a year for the rest of his life, he actually signed away his rights for the profits Marvel would make on their movies and TV-shows. If he hadn't, his family would have been very wealthy today.

^ That's interesting; thanks for posting! Was it Stan Lee or Marvel going through bankruptcy proceedings at that time? If Stan, then what he got in the deal probably seemed great at the time. And also, in 1998, who knew that the MCU would be a thing...

blackcauldron85 wrote:^ That's interesting; thanks for posting! Was it Stan Lee or Marvel going through bankruptcy proceedings at that time? If Stan, then what he got in the deal probably seemed great at the time. And also, in 1998, who knew that the MCU would be a thing...

Marvel. During mid to late 90's, Marvel nearly crashed. It was BAD. It was due to the over inflation of market value of the comics they were putting their bets on. They got this big of an idea thanks to the massive success of late 80's early 90's specifically X-Men thanks to numerous creative talents (Jim Lee, Todd McFarland, Rob Liefeld, etc. Though many of them left to form Image comics in 1992). Because Marvel was heading to near bankruptcy, Marvel decided sell movie license rights to various movie industry companies (Fox, Sony, etc) to keep them afloat. Hence why various Marvel movies were under different movie studios prior to Disney buying them.

DC never had this problem because Time Warner was smart enough to buy the whole DC company way back in 70s, so everything was all under one umbrella from get-go. Superman and Batman are iconic and brand status on a whole another level that Time Warner was smart enough to grab them when they did.

Funny enough, while the Marvel movies and such are doing fine under Disney banner, the comic side of things are doing horrendously bad.

Super Aurora wrote:Funny enough, while the Marvel movies and such are doing fine under Disney banner, the comic side of things are doing horrendously bad.

Marvel can blame themselves, at least partially. Don't let the movies influence the comics too much. And most importantly; design a proper website. From the start their website that is supposed to fill you in on which comics that are for sales has been a complete mess.
Putting them into different categories, like the mutant universe, titles not part of the Marvel universe, vigilantes and so on would have made it easier to navigate. Making a clear distinction between trade paperback, online comics and monthly titles as well.

But what is most important is to separate the past from the present, and to make sure what is one-shots, limited series and ongoing series. Or crossovers, for that matter.
It's good that some titles are reprints for those who wants to buy them, but they are competing for space on the same page as all the titles that are not reprints.

It's all about being able to navigate in an easy and effortless way. Just one look at the mess, and I give up. If not, I would probably have ordered various titles. After all these years, and Marvel still doesn't care to make it easier for their readers. Looks like they really don't give a damn about it.

(Off topic from what the discussion is about, but since it was mentioned)

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:Funny enough, while the Marvel movies and such are doing fine under Disney banner, the comic side of things are doing horrendously bad.

Marvel can blame themselves, at least partially. Don't let the movies influence the comics too much. And most importantly; design a proper website. From the start their website that is supposed to fill you in on which comics that are for sales has been a complete mess.
Putting them into different categories, like the mutant universe, titles not part of the Marvel universe, vigilantes and so on would have made it easier to navigate. Making a clear distinction between trade paperback, online comics and monthly titles as well.

But what is most important is to separate the past from the present, and to make sure what is one-shots, limited series and ongoing series. Or crossovers, for that matter.
It's good that some titles are reprints for those who wants to buy them, but they are competing for space on the same page as all the titles that are not reprints.

It's all about being able to navigate in an easy and effortless way. Just one look at the mess, and I give up. If not, I would probably have ordered various titles. After all these years, and Marvel still doesn't care to make it easier for their readers. Looks like they really don't give a damn about it.

(Off topic from what the discussion is about, but since it was mentioned)

Yeah. I know about all this. There's also multiple other factors as well why marvel comics company doing so bad.

TBH, I never liked Disney's take on Spider-Man. Felt too childish and corporate and just didn't get the appeal of the character of Spider-Man in the first place, so maybe this will lead to better adaptations in the future. I don't care for sexy Aunt May, Uncle Iron Man, Zendaya Watson, so If I don't see them again, well, it won't be too sad.

Oh well, at least I still have Spectacular Spiderman and Into the Spiderverse. I just wish Marvel could have some balls and make like DC and have an adult animation division to make PG-13 direct to video animated Spider-man films. What would I give to have an authentic "Night Gwen Stacy Died" adaptation, but I imagine in today's current climate people would rage against it...It's still a good story, tho.

Sexy Aunt May and Zendaya Watson will continue to appear. They are not MCU exclusive.

I like this version's Aunt May because it's a different take that actually worked, at least imo. Although Sally Field as May is the best film version; too bad she's stuck in what's otherwise the worst film adaptation of Spider-Man... :/ Field really deserved to be in the original trilogy or in this iteration alongside Tom Holland. She and Holland would've played so well off one another.

This series will be fine without Disney, imo. Besides, the biggest connection, Iron Man, is dead anyway. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed seeing Holland interact with the others, but he's just as worthwhile solo.

farerb wrote:Sexy Aunt May and Zendaya Watson will continue to appear. They are not MCU exclusive.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzjsEsdmYNk[/youtube]

It seems like a done deal.

Sony Pictures Chief on Spider-Man Split: ‘For the Moment the Door is Closed’
https://variety.com/2019/film/news/spid ... 203324907/

The Russo Brothers on Spider-Man’s Marvel Split
https://www.thedailybeast.com/avengers- ... -the-oscar
(via Fandom)

The article just gives a tiny peak into the issues it took to get Spidey in the MCU in the first place.

He's back!

Spider-Man Back In Action As Sony Agrees To Disney Co-Fi For New Movie, Return To MCU: How Spidey’s Web Got Untangled
https://deadline.com/2019/09/sony-walt- ... 202746497/

Jon Watts In Final Talks To Return As Director Of Third ‘Spider-Man: Homecoming’ Movie
https://deadline.com/2019/09/jon-watts- ... 202746782/

Well, it's only for one more standalone film and one appearance in a Marvel Studios film. Since Sony is already preparing Spider-Man 4 with Tom Holland, it means the divorce has only been postponed and will be finalized after Spider-Man 3. I don't expect a renewal of the deal after that. I hope they at least use Spider-Man 3 to offer a conclusion to the story and explain why he won't be part of the MCU moving forward. Below there some interesting theories on how they can achieve that.

How Marvel Can Solve Its Spider-Man Problem in One Movie
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat- ... cu-1243949

I'm so glad Disney and Sony reached an agreement and Spider-Man will stay in the MCU for at least one more film.

Sotiris wrote:How Marvel Can Solve Its Spider-Man Problem in One Movie
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat- ... cu-1243949

I like the first and the third solutions, I hope they opt for one of those two if they want to give the character a proper farewell from the MCU. The fourth one was hilarious.