• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

[MCU] Rumor Thread: It was the dawning of the 4th Phase [Contains Endgame Spoilers]

Grumpygoat

Give a damn
Validated User
But Sony made a 300 million dollar profit off 80 million too. And got it off a film that left people dying to see the next one, not wondering when Sony would just give up. Plus- Sony got Marvel’s proven story concepts, Marvel’s proven production team, Marvel’s other characters, association with the MCU, and incalculable marketing assistance in the form of Spiderman being in the Avengers films.
Regarding the profit split matter, why would Sony forego half its profits when it could cough up 5% instead? That 5% isn't that far off from what Sony would offer Disney, anyway, with a 5% profit share. And to be sure, I believe that Sony's alliance with Disney was worth more than 5%. But 50%? I don't buy it. It's just such a ridiculously large amount of the profits.
 

Kevin Mowery

WAUGH!
Validated User
Even accepting that Sony had a ridiculously good deal - and I'm inclined to believe it did - Disney was over the top in how much it asked for.
I mentioned in the other thread that I used to negotiate insurance settlements (not contracts, but negotiation is negotiation) and it was not at all uncommon for the claimant to come in with a very high demand, for the insurance company representative to refuse to even entertain that initial demand, and then for things to go back forth until both sides agreed on a pretty predictable number. (Like, seriously, I saw initial demands of a quarter million dollars that ended up settling for four figures.) But you make that high demand because it gives you more room to negotiate down and maybe the other side will blink.

Plus, when it comes to negotiating down, Disney apparently did want to also negotiate a deal for the other characters included with the Spider-Man IP. My dad used to do door-to-door sales, selling signs to businesses. And the way that worked was that the company had a set price for a sign, let's say $500. My dad would get a flat rate for selling the sign, plus a commission for anything he got for the sign over that amount. But he could also negotiate the price of the sign down by asking for stuff. He'd go in to sell a $500 sign, say it was going to cost $2500, then get the business to give him $1500 worth of stuff (that the business bought at wholesale prices, so less than that) he wanted in exchange for knocking $1500 off the price, and still get commission on the extra $500 he sold the sign for.

I think that was Disney's plan. Come in really high so they could negotiate down and give away a big concession that they didn't expect to get anyway in exchange for the rights to put, I dunno, Spider-Gwen, in MCU movies and still end up with a better deal than what they already had.
 

Qwa'ha Xahn

High King of the Known Worlds
Validated User
How much did Far From Home benefit from Endgame? As I mentioned above, one of the reasons I went to see it was to see the state of the world post-Endgame. If Spider-man is not going to be part of the MCU going forward I have less interest in it.
This is important too. I know I wouldn’t have gone to theaters without the connection. Homecoming may be the only Marvel film I didn’t see in theaters, because I was so burned on Amazing Spiderman 2 that even my enjoyment of the character’s Civil War appearance wasn’t enough to get me out. But thanks to Homecoming on dvd, Infinity War, and Endgame- Far From Home became “can’t miss”.
 

Grumpygoat

Give a damn
Validated User
I mentioned in the other thread that I used to negotiate insurance settlements (not contracts, but negotiation is negotiation) and it was not at all uncommon for the claimant to come in with a very high demand, for the insurance company representative to refuse to even entertain that initial demand, and then for things to go back forth until both sides agreed on a pretty predictable number. (Like, seriously, I saw initial demands of a quarter million dollars that ended up settling for four figures.) But you make that high demand because it gives you more room to negotiate down and maybe the other side will blink.
And granted. I'm not disputing that it might be a negotiating tactic, and maybe even a frequent one between studios, but that still means Disney was asking for way too much (even if it expected something much more reasonable) and it doesn't change the fact that a lot of people are coming out to defend the closest thing to a monopoly in movies, the company that has routinely screwed over the public domain, and that near-monopoly's unreasonable demand.
 

Arc Spiral

Registered User
Validated User
Amazingly short-sighted of Sony. Feige pushed them into a corner by making Spider-Man a part of a greater universe and a move calculated to push Sony into said corner. However, they’re there and there isn’t a reason in the world that Far From Home makes a billion other than being an Endgame coda.

Accept the deal, Sony, you got into this position by making shite Spider-Man movies. You’re not getting out by making more shite Spider-Man movies.
 

Grumpygoat

Give a damn
Validated User
By all appearances, Sony can still make Tom Holland Spider-Man movies. It made substantial bank on Venom. And it is a critical darling due to Into the Spider-Verse. Sony's not in a corner, and has no incentive to take Disney's garbage deal.
 

ShadowbaneX

Registered User
Validated User
By all appearances, Sony can still make Tom Holland Spider-Man movies. It made substantial bank on Venom. And it is a critical darling due to Into the Spider-Verse. Sony's not in a corner, and has no incentive to take Disney's garbage deal.
The question isn't if they can make more Tom Holland Spider-Man movies, it's if they can make more good ones. Venom did make a pile of cash, but I haven't seen and I have no inclination to. I'll give them Into the Spider-Verse, but I don't know how often they can tap that well. The first one was good because no one was paying attention. That that it was successful I expect follow ups to suffer from sequel-itis.

Sony was in no way obliged to accept Disney's offer, true, but Sony's likely opening offer was likely equally garbage. It's business and neither side is likely playing fair. That's why they eventually meet somewhere in the middle.
 

Grumpygoat

Give a damn
Validated User
The question isn't if they can make more Tom Holland Spider-Man movies, it's if they can make more good ones. Venom did make a pile of cash, but I haven't seen and I have no inclination to. I'll give them Into the Spider-Verse, but I don't know how often they can tap that well. The first one was good because no one was paying attention. That that it was successful I expect follow ups to suffer from sequel-itis.
The MCU benefits a lot from branding. I'd rather watch The Amazing Spider-Man than Thor: the Dark World, but Dark World has a lot more cachet by virtue of being part of the MCU. And while this news dings the Spider-Brand, Tom Holland has already been in the MCU. It's still the same Peter Parker most of us know and love. In other words, Sony's franchise already benefits from the MCU branding - it has the connection that helped so-so or even bad movies like Iron Man 2 do much better at the box office than they had any right to. So I'm not all that worried about the Sony Spider-Man movies being any worse than what the MCU has to offer. As bad as Sony's Spider-Man movies have been, I wouldn't put their lows much lower than Iron Man 2. And the MCU connection will exist no matter what, so long as Sony can keep making Tom Holland Spider-Man movies - maybe not as strongly, but it'll still be there.
 

Blizzardborn

Hiding in a snowdrift
Validated User
Is Disney's deal actually for a share of the gross, or some flavor of net? 5% of 1.1 billion would be 55 million. If they only draw on studio share, that'd be 5% of 550 million, or 27.5 million. It's important to keep the terms right.

Assuming we're going with half of total costs and half of studio profits and using FFH as an example, the movie costs about 240 million with M&A, the studio share of the box office is 550 million, leaving a net of 310 million, which they split for 155 million each. Disney gets hurt here because they aren't compensated for all the other work they put in on building and maintaining the MCU brand, which is a profit multiplier. How much of one, we don't know, although it can be pointed out that the last movie Sony did themselves without the MCU hype only made about two-thirds what FFH did, on a much higher budget (709MM and 293MM before M&A, respectively).
 

Kevin Mowery

WAUGH!
Validated User
Is Disney's deal actually for a share of the gross, or some flavor of net? 5% of 1.1 billion would be 55 million. If they only draw on studio share, that'd be 5% of 550 million, or 27.5 million. It's important to keep the terms right.
Disney's current deal is 5% of the gross. I suspect this is because Disney didn't want to run into Hollywood accounting where, gosh, that billion dollar movie just wasn't able to turn a profit. It's unclear how much of the production costs Disney paid to make the movies, but it was clearly less than 50%, since their offer was to split production costs 50/50 and then split the take 50/50. That would almost certainly have to be gross again.

If the movie makes $1 billion gross, but it cost $300 million to make and advertise, split between Disney and Sony evenly, that would leave a net of $700 million.

If they split the gross, each studio gets $500 million and they spent $150 million, so they each profit $350 million.

If they split the net, each studio would get $350 million, and they spent $150 million, so they each profit $200 million and also there's $300 million unaccounted for.

Even splitting the gross is a huge difference from the previous deal, where even if Sony paid the full amount of production and marketing, the billion dollar movie with a $300 million budget would give Sony $650 million profit and Disney $50 million.

Interestingly, the numbers I pulled out of my ass here, if Disney put up 50% of the production and marketing cost, but got 20%, the profit for each studio would work out to $650 million for Sony and $50 million for Disney--the same as if Disney put up no money but got 5%. Which is a meaningless coincidence, but ultimately I think what will happen is both studios will go back to the table and they'll try to find a sweet spot where Disney assumes more of the risk, gets more of the reward, and maybe gets access to some more characters, because they have the actual numbers and they can tinker with them until they get something they can both live with.

Heck, if Disney ends up basically the same financially, but they can use more Spider-Man characters in MCU movies, they might consider that a win.
 
Top Bottom