After MADAME WEB, Marvel Could SUE SONY for the Rights to SPIDER-MAN
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ย. 2024
- Marvel's Sony Lawsuit Explained! Go to tryfum.com/SCR... and use code SCREENCRUSH to save an additional 10% off your order today.
Get your Deadpool parody shirts at our MERCH STORE Here → screencrushmer...
Was Madame Web so Bad that it could allow Marvel to sue Sony for the rights to Spider-Man?
Go here → screencrush.com/
TikTok → / screencrushnews
Like us → / screencrush
Follow us → / screencrushnews
Get our newsletter → screencrush.com...
Written by Mike Mazella: / mikemcomedy
Hosted by Ryan Arey ( / ryanarey )
Edited by Randolf Nombrado, Brianna McLarty, Lee Mazzio, and Paulina Perez-Perez
Featuring:
Mike Mazella / mikemcomedy
#MadameWeb #SpiderMan #marvel
![[TH] JFT vs RLF - VCT Ascension Pacific - Day 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PuIH7w_jO6c/mqdefault.jpg)
Dakota Johnson suffered from brand confusion as an actor in the film. That should weigh more than audience confusion.
That’s literally the only chance a suit would have. I still think it gets thrown out. Just ends up pissing Sony off. They make bad solo Spider-Man movies without Marvel and we as fans suffer
@@westcoastavenger I'm gonna listen to the lawyer in the video who says there's multiple angles a suit could take
@@kylecarter1599 and that lawyer is helping make content and will tell you it’s a frivolous suit and would get thrown out.
@westcoastavenger this is America. If you can pay the court fees you can sue anyone for anything. And there is enough money for Marvel to keep a suit like this in court for years.
The idea that actors don't know who runs the MCU is just silly. That didn't happen. It's just people being confused because of posts put up by social media interns.
Yeah, my dad literally said “did you hear that marvel is taking a big hit with that bomb of a movie?” Talking about madam web. He’s not in the target demographic, but he used to work in the movie industry, and he doesn’t know the difference. I think marvel has the best case for market confusion/dilution than they have ever had before.
Unless your Dad meant The Marvels 🤣 They ain't in the clear at all
Sony did the marvel comics intro well before the MCU existed (see Rami trilogy). Same for the Stan Lee cameos. And brought the public interest for marvel comics based movies, same with Fox X men, same with Paramount MCU. All before Disney marvel owned a thing. But now if Disney bought the Paramount MCU, comics, and now fox Xmen they therefore have the right to bully any remaining mega corp rights holder right?
Also they damage their own MCU Brand with the Kang fiasco, the recent terrible box office, continually falling since endgame, disconnected shows that cost a fortune, direct to streaming... and all of the directionless phase 4. The argument in court that Sony damaged the ip. (which they outright own the movie rights to soo..) is rich from Disney. Oh plus they sued a dead kid's family for a Spidey tombstone. And fought to stop the hulk creators family using the copyright system *that Disney created* to take back their rights to the IP they created. Disney damaged it fine on their own.
@@abanoubshahid9829 fox destroyed the xmen. Even DCEU is better. You just hate disney. Only good thing they did was hit on 20% of casting. Sony's live action spider movies have been crap since amazing spider man. I dread the Kraven movie. Their animated spiders are great.
Agreed. If a case has to be made for Market Dilution, Marvel should do it now whilst the terrible press for Madam Web is still fresh.
Isn't Spider-Man the flagship character of Marvel? I see a good case there.
Let Sony keep their animated rights. Fine. But they should be legally forced out of the live-action movie rights.
@@papajess4jelopllpuup I'm not sure Disney getting the rights to Spiderman is a good idea given their track record lately with the M-SHE-U (I'm sorry "phase 4"), even in previous phases the MCU had progressively gotten goofier and goofier since Guardians of the Galaxy 1 with the worst one that real rubbed me the wrong way being Thor Ragnarok (you had to break the tension of a whole planet blowing up for a funny, you couldn't just let the scene breath *sigh). Sam Raimi's spider man trilogy still holds up way better, Toby actually acts his age like a believable senior in highschool and freshman in college during the first film. While Tom Holland's Spiderman comes off like he still is in 6 or 7th grade and at least the Sam Raimi trilogy & Andrew Garfield's spiderman got the fact that it was Uncle Ben's death that rattled Spiderman into using his powers for good and not for selfish reasons (an event that dates back to the original 1960s Spiderman from Stan Lee), something Disney's Spiderman glossed over (WTH! is Uncle Ben in the Disneyverse anyways) and by the time of No way home it was too late to have an earth shattering moment like his CW show of a teen Ant dying. Also I think other pre-mcu Marvel films like the Blade trilogy, the two early 2000s Fantastic 4s, and even ghost rider were pretty good and often better then what Disney has given us. As for the claim "Fox destroyed the X-men" all the xmen films before Dark Phoenix were good, the Wolverine ones and two deadpool films were the best ones. I even forgive them for sewing deadpool's mouth shut (I just preferred Stewart over McAvoy as professor x, but they were all good). Disney bought Fox in 2017 with the deal being finalized early 2019 later that year they finished making Dark Phoenix which was %100 identical to Disney's Captain Marvel (down to the same plot line of a plank of wood supposedly fighting against people saying she is too "emotional"). So I'm just saying Disney might be the common factor here... I guess we are different I saw the Kraven trailer and was actually interested to see that character on the big screen. I really liked this genetically mutated character from Spiderman the animated series (1994) and it tied in well with Spiderman's own mutation problems of becoming the man-spider as the cure Spiderman and Kraven's wife uses on Kraven later help turn man-spider back into spiderman, which involves Kraven risking mutating himself again to catch man-spider to save spiderman.
I think the actresses confusion is enough in itself to warrant the law suit. Multiple actresses in the film believed they were being brought into the MCU. Sony is clearly trying to piggyback off MCU success and trick fans and even those in the film industry into believing they are attached to the Sony films. I think the way to go would be to try and prevent them from releasing future films, in essence getting them to fail to fulfil the constant release schedule clause. Fans gotta do everything we can. Do NOT see these movies. They can't keep doing this if they are constantly losing money.
That could happen. The best case scenario is a judge rules in Disney’s favor and we don’t see a Spider-Man movie for 5-10 years. Not really a great outcome.
I love Ryan’s videos and this one was fun to speculate on but the only way Spider-Man goes back to Marvel/Disney is via acquisition/sale
What success😂😂😂 the mcu has putting put shitter content lately at they had across the spider verse last year
If Dakota thought she was in the MCU that's even more embarrassing for her. She put little effort into that movie. Her acting didn't help.
@Bodharas think about it. By time she realized what had happened, she said F them. And did that on purpose to tank the project in retaliation.
That only works if they told her she was in the MCU. Her confusion is her problem because it is common knowledge that Sony is doing its own universe.
I can't imagine being the executive at Sony who signs off of selling the Spider-Man rights back to Marvel/Disney only to have Marvel turn around and make another billion dollar Spidey film.
That executive would have their heads on a platter before the end of the business day.
But it’s Disney. So no it won’t happen.
@@SansoHumareverything we know about the fourth MCU spider man film so far from what Marvel wants to do with it vs what Sony wants to do with it indicates Sony would butcher it and Marvel would actually give us the street level Holland spider man vs kingpin film we've wanted since 2016. So yeah, it actually probably would happen.
So Spiderman is going to enter public domain in 2088, anyone else as excited as me?! 😆
There're other alternatives, like selling back the rights, but getting royalty off it, meaning Sony would effectively get a bonus every time a spider-man movie is made / spider-man is used in a movie. It doesn't need to be a flat monetary deal.
@@MRARIELALVA if we're still alive
I paid $20 to see the Inhumans theatrical release at the local IMAX. Hard to believe Madame Web was worse.
I walked out
It was. Lol
Inhumans was ABC Studios (still Disney and Marvel Television sure), so not tecnically Marvel Studios, so even their reputation was piggyback riding on Marvel's success at the time.
Madam Web is far worse than Inhumans, so yeah...
Madame Web was waaaaaaaay worse than the worst thing marvel has put out.
Sony is good with the animated so they should stick with that and say "hey marvel you take over all the live action and do a you see fit 100%". I have an insider who told me that Kraven will be like Madame Web on steroids. In his own words "they took everything that made Madame web bad and tripled down on it." He said there was no way he felt any connections with the movie and it felt and looked rushed, yet another Sony movie that will fail. The script was terrible and the storytelling was horrible. Apparently this will be the M.O. for Sony moving forward.
The apparent situation where Dakota Johnson believed she was joining an MCU movie and fired her management only supports the notion of brand confusion.
That bs she knew it wasn't MCU
just tells me she's not a serious professional about her work...
@@360.Tapestry It tells me her management probably put out the post and not her.
Sony is like the unqualified analyst that works for the firm and keeps messing everything up but the firm can't fire them because they're the son or daughter of the owner.
Exactly
Sony bought the rights. They can do whatever the hell they want with them
@@radrobd123 no one said they couldn’t but when all here agreeing that Sony is trash at spin-offs
No it’s not Spider-Man movies are amazing it’s only because of the deal with Sony they can’t just do what they want with the character anymore
im pretty sure they cant even use the character without Marvel approval, thats whi is not in any of the spinoffs not even cameo, im absolutely sure thats a clause in the contract, there is no other explanation, they where rumors of cameos filmed for both Venon and Morbius@@iloveecheese143
I think my favorite part was when she realizes she can change things in the past and uses it to get a cathartic hug from her mom and leaves instead of STOPPING HER IMPENDING MURDER 😂😂
She watched the flash movie and knew her actions could have dire consequences on the multiverse
😂😂😂
TVA be like 👀
Technically she can’t actually change anything that already happened, she only can see the past
@@JohnDoe-sl6dibro the flash movie in 2003😱😱😱😱😱
A street-level Spider-man movie would be a nice change of pace instead of each movie upping the stakes.
No, it absolutely would not. Spider-Man is not a street level hero. Whoever started that needs disciplined.
@@fendisaintlaurent4257 Just cause spider-man isn't a street level hero doesn't mean a street-level conflict wouldn't work well. All you need is the proper motivation and rationale. Plenty of street level motivation to rely on, a very plausible direction being anything to do with miles morales. As for rationale, both daredevil and miles could provide ample reason to pull spider-man into a more street-level conflict.
believe it or not spiderman started out as the underdog, whats wrong with going back to your roots especially when everything is oversaturated with all this high stakes multiverse yip yap. (not talking about atsv or nwh, those were great.)@@fendisaintlaurent4257
@@fendisaintlaurent4257 Spiderman is at his BEST at the street level. It's where he started, and it's the core of his character that he ALWAYS returns to. "Friendly neighborhood Spiderman" is how he thinks of himself. Sure, he has avengers level powers, and often gets pulled into large-scale threats, but at his CORE, he is a street level hero. That's the root of the character in the first place. More spectacle is not necessarily better.
And frankly, in this particular case, where this version of Spiderman was first introduced in Civil War, high spectacle, then Homecoming showcased him operating at the street level to really find his identity as a hero, then Infinity war and Endgame brought him back to the spectacle, Far From Home established him further in the grand scale spectacle as the heir apparent of the Avengers, but it attacked his identity, then No Way Home was a grand spectacle that resolved the attack on his identity by *removing* his identity. That's where the character was left off, he needs to re-establish his identity, find who he is as a person and as a hero when nobody knows Peter Parker. Because Peter Parker IS Spiderman, he is driven BY his identity, who he is AT HIS CORE. And who he is at his core, is the friendly neighborhood Spiderman, who cares about making his community safer, whether that's from an intergalactic conqueror who wants to kill half of everybody (which includes his community) or from an organized crime boss that's pushing drugs and ordering hits against activists. Spiderman lost who he is and needs to find himself, and that can ONLY happen at the street level. The spectacle of grand-scale threats will only get in the way of the character, and the character is what drives a Spiderman story. There's a place for spectacle in Spiderman stories, but this isn't it.
@@fendisaintlaurent4257 then why would Spidey team up with Daredevil to fight Kingpin in the comics?? that's a street level fight if you compare it to all other adventures that Spidey has been on. Kingpin isn't a cosmic villain or a mutant or an enhanced individual like Winter Soldier.
No.
Here you go, saved you half an hour.
Thank you.
figured as much
I hope one day I can return the favor
Yea this video has cringe moments and is hard to watch. This could have been summed up with examples in 5 minutes.
It's a pretty obvious answer lol
Sony is already standing on a slippery slope with getting sued anyway. They heavily used the Spider-Women in their trailers for advertisement and they only appear in their costumes for seconds in the film. As of 2022, a judge declared that film studios can get sued for false advertising in their trailers something that Sony has did with Morbius and what they borderline did with Madame Web. Sooner or later, their luck is going to run out at this rate.
Exactly!
You can't make a superhero movie showing 3 characters on full costume...and that only accounts for 1% of screen time.
@@veemon9280madam Webb isn't a superhero, and it's Her movie. The posters and trailers show nothing that ISN'T in the movie.. unlike the MCU faked up trailers.. you clearly don't understand the court ruling or you'd know sony did nothing wrong . A movie owes the audience nothing other than what's advertised - & the movie has everything it advertised
What you are referring to was cases in which entire scenes/actors that were in the trailer weren't in the movie itself. If at any point in time it showed them in the costumes in the movie then you don't have a case on that.
Eh, that's a bit hyperbolic. The ruling in the case you mentioned doesn't necessarily apply here. That was more about showing actors that weren't in the final product.
@@veemon9280not that I like Sony doing it, but I don't see it as false advertisement, as they never said they'd be in costume for a lot of the movie.
Make Beyond The Spiderverse, & call it a day Sony. Go out on a high note.
Ahh I remember when I used to think people had a shred of dignity - nice times
And I hope that spin offs of the Spider verse movies aren't made. I can see that multiple Spidermen being given spin off animated movies just to milk the brand. 🤢🤢🤮🤮🤡🤡
They should sell it and get disney to end it.
Not to mention the fact that half of Madame webs actors seemed to think they were in a marvel movie. I would think something like that could be used to discredit Sony.
That's really on them though, isn't it?
At the very least, their publicist and agent should have told them what they were signing up for and got them clued up.
Marvel would have to prove it beyond conversations the parties have had. They’d need written proof
They are in a Marvel movie, a Sony/Marvel movie.
Not a Disney/Marvel movie, that is in the MCU.
@@bishopwhite1822 Not everyone is aware of the distinction between Sony Marvel and Disney Marvel. Sony is trying to dupe audiences and the actors involved in their projects into thinking their movies are MCU movies.
Would definitely be something that would come up in a court hearing, potentially Marvel could use them as witnesses against Sony
Meanwhile, Sony is completely ignoring a 4th Jumanji movie with The Rock, Kevin Hart, and Jack Black. They seem to only be interested in making Spider movies as if nothing else exists. GET YOUR CRAP TOGETHER, SONY!
Nobody wants a 4th jumanji movie🤣 I can guarantee you that would BOMB.
All of the Jumanji movies have made money lmao it's a very successful series @@Cloud-ox
@@Cloud-oxNo it wouldn’t, you don’t know anything
@@Cloud-ox I'd rather see that instead of the dumbster fire madame web
There’s a third jumanii movie?
Better yet, can fans sue both companies for ruining shit we USED to love
Can I sue you for such a dumb comment?
@@mrgotitfordalow I wish
This lawyer said the same thing I've been saying since Morbius. The best move for Sony, imo, is to split the Spiderman film rights between animated and live action. They keep animation and marvel/disney gets the live action
Marvel has the animation rights for Spidey. They have had it for years like since 2012 or so that is why Spectacular Spidey ended so early because of that reason.
Sony own the film rights to Spider-Man. So it has to go to theaters. Which is why they can do Spider verse.
I'd be surprised that after the 90's Fantastic 4 debacle, that any agreement Marvel made afterward didn't include a quality threshold, so you couldn't push out any old shit in order to extend the rights. I'm sure I read somewhere during the time where the Amazing series tanked and the emails got leaked that there was something along those lines, but maybe I was wrong.
Let's face it: Marvel were desperate back when they made the initial deal... and desperate times call for desperate and hastily-written contracts.
Spiderman 4 cleaning up the streats, but seriously though, i do want a street level spiderman, it's where he shines the most "you're friendly neighborhood spiderman"
How is Disney Junior/Marvel Animation producing the kids show “Spidey and his Amazing Friends” given the way production rights are explained here?
last I had looked into it, Disney/Marvel can actually make animated episodes of spider-man as long as they don’t exceed 44 minutes long. the Ultimate Spider-Man show ran on Disney XD channel for years.
@@BigMilkCartons2thanks!
sony owns the movie rights if spiderman while marvel owns the cartoon rights
@alexxniblock8038 when Tobey's Spiderman 4 was at production Marvel was closer to getting the rights back because Sam raimi left spider man 4 production because of creative control. And the Marvel and Sony contract says that Sony has to make a spider man movie every 5 years if not then it will go back to Marvel . Then Sony who was making tasm at that point gave the Spiderman animation rights to Marvel in exchange of some time for making Andrew's spider man film
@@BigMilkCartons2Sony and Marvel both have animation Spiderman rights . Sony gave the animation Spiderman rights to marvel in exchange of giving more time for Andrew's spider man film back in 2011
Stop interrupting. You brought on a lawyer to explain a theory. It's one thing to keep an interview on topic but you don't let him make the point.
Recall just this week Disney struck a deal with Sony to produce all their DVD and Blu-ray physical media... perhaps as a way to loosen up Sony to work deal on these Marvel issues?
Hey Ryan and team! Love the content. Just had an idea for a video. I think it would be cool if you guys went through every post credit scene in the MCU and kind of help clean up the loose ends. By this I mean like explain what it could be setting up, when we could be getting it and how it could tie in to the big picture. I think it could help some fans get a more complete view on what to look forward to and be excited for. I mention this because when you bring up certain post credit scenes in videos, I sometimes had completely forgotten them before the reminder.
New Rockstars did something like that a few months back.
Great idea
@@wellroundedmom6769 it would be better, and probably more realistic, if this channel did it. I had to unsub from New Rockstars because so many of their videos are just WAAAAY out there hypothesizing presented as fact.
Well problem is they have no plans to tie up a lot of those scenes and they often amounted to nothing burgers
Sounds like a great video to me I’d see it
At 18:00 mike mentions some of the advertising sony did for morbius and madame web, my question is if disney/marvel could potentially sue sony for the spiderman rights and use the false advertising of the films as an argument?
Even the actors didnt know that it was a sony movie so you could say that sony has been misleading actors and fans to try and keep the rights, sony is technically meeting the requirements regarding how many movies they need to release over a span of time, so the advertising tactics they use are used too keep fans from making the distinction between marvel and sony.
I would imagine any judge would throw out a case claiming misleading the audience with a simple catch phrase in a trailer.
Now if you can prove in court that Sydney and Dakota (and others, Tyrese Gibson was in Morbius and once said in an interview that it was part of the MCU he was told-you can google it for proof of discovery 🤣) were mislead and outright lied to, you might have something but Sony wouldn’t have shit lawyers. They would likely argue Dakota, Sydney and others just made the assumption. That would likely result in the judge throwing out the case too unless something was in writing or on tape.
Disney/Marvel are messing up the MCU
Did they not see the last time Marvel rushed films?
No, Marvel/Disney won't be suing over Madame Webb.
I think it would be in Disney’s benefit to not try and sue Sony, which would antagonize their relationship for the foreseeable future and risk losing Spider-Man all together if they lost the lawsuit
Might not be a bad thing, might be better to remove the blurred line and just know one way or another.
… I have an idea…
Disney should *BUY* Sony.
Agreed. They wouldn’t have a strong case based off information we know publicly. There may be something in recent contracts between the two studios after the original 1999 leaked contract (available to read, you can Google it) but it would just further fray the relationship.
I think the disagreement might be blown out of proportion. RPK isn’t always right. He’s a click baiter. Decent track record but this could just be early negotiations on the direction of the next film.
Whomever said it would be “no big loss” to not have Spider-Man anymore is just wrong. Spider-Man is synonymous with the brand. In honestly think it’s weird (and kind of stupid) that Sony has the rights to just Spider-Man. Just sell it at peak value and reinvest in their operating divisions that actually make money for them like electronics and gaming.
@@franciscs1604 better idea a studio should take marvel from Disney
@@dariuschisholm7317 what does that even mean? What studios out there are competent? Warner? Nope. Universal? Ha! Sony?
Only competent studio is A24 and they’re worth like $40.
Plus, Marvel Studios alone would be at minimum $40-50B? It’s the most successful movie franchise in history by a country mile
Sony should retain animated and gaming rights then allow Disney/Marvel to take over live action
Sony doesn't own gaming rights.
This is much better
@joshuamunn2410sony games are better
@@dariuschisholm7317
???
Hell nah have ya seen what marvel made recently?
If they sue them over this than they should put a hit out on themselves for secret invasion, Thor love and thunder, and the Eternals because all of those were far worse than this movie.
This is like a Snyder cult level of coping to think they're gonna sue
plot twist, the agreement has a ironclad "no sue" clausule from each other
I want Marvel to at least get the live action rights. I want to see Tom Hollands 4-5-6 Spider-Man movies focus on him being a street level hero and maybe even have him infected by the venom symbiote at one point and having to over come all that w/o his friends who still don’t know him. I’d also like a Rami/Tobey SM4, and an Andrew ASM3. Sony needs to quit w/ the terrible one-offs, pass Venom off to MCU as well and focus on animation & video games.
Not a single mention about Sony having the GAMES as well as the animation.
Sony is NOT going to sell that license, ever, even with shitty movies.
The Spidey games on mobile probably rake in a billion just on the MTX.
I'm guessing Sony would just countersue Marvel for ruining every franchise they've been involved with since Endgame.
Bro. Quit interrupting the lawyer.
I was thinking the same thing lol
Sue them for what? Marvel did a mistake once upon a time by selling Spider-Man, but they have a contract. They can't legally dispute it. As long as Sony makes Spider-Man projects, they will keep the rights. All Disney Marvel can do is offer them ludicrous amounts of money, but Sony knows they can probably squeeze a lot more by utilizing the rights.
Sony should sell the live action stuff on spiderman and keep the animated universe
Nahhhhh, that would be bad for their business
Nahhhhh, that would be bad for their business
that would also lose their rights to Spiderverse, since they still have Spiderman movie rights, and Spiderverse is a movie, regardless that it's animated.
@@antyep Then they should focus more animated Spiderman movies
@@kellycriterion1019 Them keeping the film rights is already bad for business
Getting tired of the creators that want to combine Marvel fans with all people that watch comic book films. Marvel fans know the difference between Sony and Disney.
Exactly 👍
We also have to take general audiences into account. Unfortunately, there are people in the general audience who genuinely believe that the Sony movies are in the MCU.
@@isostormgamer5584 While I see your point.... Notice how "general audience" and "Marvel fans" are two different phrases using four different words? General audience may be confused, not the real fans.
Nah. Marvel couldn't sue Sony over something they own the rights to. Especially not when their own movies & shows are bombing. They're doing enough damage to their own brand themselves.
Sony just rather stupidly hasn't understood that they could still be using Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield & making an entirely separate from the MCU Spider-Man movie series. They don't need to keep pumping out Spider-Manless Spider-Man movies at all.
Ikr?
Faaaaaaaacts
Words that people need to hear
Movies being good or bad is subjective. I didn’t think Madame Web was terrible. Didn’t even think it was bad. It was just okay. People have high expectations nowadays which I get, but you shouldn’t be able to sue over a subjective opinion
The argument isnt your personal opinion on one movie. The argument is that Sony is pretending its Marvel and putting out content that performs so poorly that they are diluting and affecting the appetite for Marvel movies.
Strange how you characterize a contract not allowing Peter Parker to be Black, or gay ( i.e. preserve the character and not allow it to be infected by fetish or race grifting), as "horrible"
Yea. Sue em Marvel. Only you are allowed to run a franchise into an impact crater and only you
sony and fox making amazing xmen and spider-man movies, paved the way for audiences to accept iron man, and the mcu
Naw, Iron Man paved the way for Iron Man & the mcu, old school xmen & spiderman movies paved the way for Deadpool
@@sabieleclipse5799 i checked the internet, it said you are wrong.
Because The Marvels, Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, The Eternals, Black Widow, Captain Marvel didn't hurt Marvel's brand.
Wait.. if that’s the case. Sony doesn’t even have the rights to make a madam web movie if Sony only owns the rights to Spider-Man movies…
Y’all are goofy…. Morbius literally had trailers of Tobey spiderman on the wall in the trailer.. no lawsuit.. but madame web. Which literally stated it was in its own universe in its marketing could be sued???? Y’all bored and just riding the hate train.. yawn
I find it hard to believe those actors, Dakota, Sydney and the others didn't have lawyers on retainer and personal assistants and agents that knew damn well that a Sony Marvel film wasn't at all a Marvel/Marvel film. They were holding their noses and hoping for a pop fly. Hey... a check is a check. Do you know their saleries?
Saying “Sony can’t make a decent Spider-Man movie without Marvel Studios help,” when the Spider-Verse movies exist is absolutely insane.
I think what they mean is Live Action. After the TASM flop I feel like they're scared to make their own Spider-Man and execs feel like they won't get profit anymore from it when they're the ones who failed TASM in the first place by interfering with the Director's vision.
Marvel can't make a decent A character movie. Only use B n C character. How many years now since they their top teams(X-men) back and still no movie plans for them? A characters movie are hard to make bc of the strong fan base. B/C are easy nc no one knows about them.
the thing i was most angry about in this movie, is that the scenes where the 3 spider-women where fighting was a vision of the future. They girls never got there powers, no spder suits, nothing. was sooo disappointing.
If Sony ONLY has the rights to Spider-man and NOT any associated characters, would this "Spider-woman" movie not be considered a separate character that Marvel retains the rights to and have grounds to get the rights to Spider-man back because the justification is that Sony is using their ownership to make movies around characters Marvel owns the rights to as the movie did not actually feature Spider-man?
How exactly is it horrible that the original marvel wanted their character not to be changed in the movies? Since it's still their active character in the books. It's just being extra specific like a contract needs to be. The fact that the lawyer of all people even agreeingly says "right" is so cowardly and fake virtuous.
@@dolurosu but it was fake.... Obviously they knew it was peter parker specifically. For the mere fact that Miles Morales EXISTS in films and all the other spiderman offshoots.
When I saw the thumbnail I'm thinking they don't have a case. After watching this video I see how Disney/Marvel could go after their IP. It would be too much bad blood to actually file a suit. If I were Marvel I'd use this opportunity to gain more control over the Marvel & Sony agreement. Marvel may need to lean on the Sony with the threat of going after Spider Man's IP if they don't allow Marvel to mitigate the damage Sony has wrought on the Marvel IP.
The Amazing Spider Man 1 & 2, Venom were acceptable but not the best movies in the fans eyes. Then Morbius was so bad it was turned into the biggest meme possible and the Sony higher ups completely missed the fact that people were making fun of Morbius and re-released the movie costing them millions more. I think Marvel does have a case, they need to decide if the fallout of a law suit is worth it.
You mean Disney not just marvel it’s Disney trying to buy everything
Nonsense, sony owns the ip and hasn't violated the terms of the deal. Worse case scenario ia maybe and big maybe marvel could stop sony from making peter Parker movies, but also sony could easily just make miles movies which lots of people would go see anyways but marvel would get zero use of peter Parker in movies too.
I understand. However, if Sony wants to use the Marvel name in their movies and then churn out bad movies like Madame Web, shouldn't they protect their brand? Unlike most Marvel fans casual viewers don't know the difference between Sony Marvel and just Marvel.
@@roncoleman1859 marvel is the one requiring the logo be stamped in the movie though. it's in the original contract
@@johnpaullogan1365did you miss him saying in the video expect for movie right Marvel still OWNS these characters so of course there name is on movie it’s their characters
I cant believe i am saying this now but spiderman is in WAY better hands with sony nowadays. Disney sucks on a level of evil. I wish people would just stop watching disney and stop mentioning them
Have you seen madam web?
No.. no, it isn’t.
"spiderman cant torture people"
The movies tortured the audience
"spiderman cant be black"
Venom: 😥
Instead of Madam Web Sony should have just made a Spider-Woman movie.
Since holland spider man is established is it possible that they just take him back and implement him in the Sony universe especially with the multiverse and the fact that no one in the marvel universe knows who Peter is anymore so he’s technically alone?
Not going to happen it's Sony marvel Disney most highest grosses successful Spiderman movie ever
I’m not a lawyer but I feel pretty confident in saying the answer is no. For many reasons.
1. Tom Holland currently is not under contract (there were rumors he was offered a gigantic contract but no confirmed, and if he signed, no way THR or Variety doesn’t pick it up). Tom clearly doesn’t want to work with Sony only on Spider-Man as evident from the phone call he made directly to Bob Iger to stay in the MCU.
Tom could (and likely would) request in his next contract that he only plays Spider-Man if Marvel Studios is involved in production. Now Sony can say “no” and do a 4th recast or go with Tobey or Andrew but do you think audiences are going to stomach ANOTHER recast? No. Also, it would be a bad look for Andrew or Tobey to take the character if Tom turned it down after NWH. Plus both actors are in their 40s. Not really prime Spidey age.
2. You’ve never seen images or inclusion of Tom Holland’s Spider-Man in a SUMC movie to this date. Why? I am pretty confident that there’s some type of joint clause where Marvel and Sony have to agree on the usage of that specific Spider-Man. That’s why you saw the Tobey Spider-Man in the Morbius trailer. Yes, Tom had a split second in Venom 2s post credit. But I think Sony ran that by Marvel first to make sure.
Disneyland parks across the world have a Spider-Man ride with Tom Holland as Spider-Man in throughout the whole attraction. I don’t see them making a 6 figure plus attraction with Tom as Spider-Man if they weren’t allowed to. Now the suit is slightly changed but that’s because Disney owns the rights to Spider-Man. Just not live action over 40 minutes.
There’s other reasons I could go on about but I’ve rambled enough (and no one is going to read this lol).
@@jahdorose8659Disney sucks
@@dariuschisholm7317 lol still doing better than failure of DCU WB movies and Sony verse Spidey less movies spin offs movies also tell that to Disney marvel avengers movies and black panther and Capt America civil war/ winter soldier and more 😂
@@westcoastavenger yeah plus once MCU Done with Spiderman Sony just going to reboot again in the sonyverse
I have no faith that the court systems would allow Marvel to re-aquire Spider-Man through a lawsuit.
People forgot The Marvels lost way more money than Madame web while doing more damage as it got seen by more people who were disappointed
Tobey, Andrew and Tom ALL need their OWN solo Spidey films - without the other two.
And Sony needs to make more Spiderverse films.
Amazing Spiderman could be argued that Andrew Garfield Spiderman tortured a car thief
I doubt Marvel getting Spider-Man back would be an actual positive...
Marvel/Disney made Captain Marvel which is on par with Madame Web... Both have been making trash CBM for the past 3 years... Except for Spiderman
Spiderman is a glorified morbius without MCU
The problem is that the product Sony delivers to the theatre, never ends up being the product they advertised. Usually re-shoots are meant to add-to or improve, the final product, but Sony's re-shoots just cut up the finished film until it isnt even recognizable anymore. Every actor that has been in one of their spider-verse films has said the exact same thing.
9:40 Its not "Spider-man" that they can't change, its "Peter Parker" that has stipulations on his character. They can make a gay spider-man or black or hispanic, but they cant call that character "Peter Parker" people get that part confused all the time
The Sony leak showed that they wanted five billion for returning the Spider-man film rights, also that Disney refused to pay more than three. So 100 million was pretty far off, a single Spider-man movie makes more profit than that.
There is no freakin way Sony would give up their rights to live action Spidey….even with the loss of Madam Web, they are making millions just in sharing with Marvel joint films…Sony is getting 75% of over a billion dollars?!?
Actors not knowing the difference doesn't phase me at all because look at Marvel. The writers haven't even read the comics. So in my mind the company doing the most damage to Marvel is Marvel.
Im gonna be honest even as someone with an above average amount of knowledge about marvel, spiderman, etc. I still didnt fully realise madem web was a sony movie not a marvel movie
There's clearly things wrong with how Sony is utilizing the IP, but the licensing to Marvel for Spiderman Live Action is working for them. At a company level I do have to ask, what is stopping them from releasing a live action movie, story wise, on the level of the SpiderVerse movies? You'd reckon on SpiderVerse the script/story gets locked in early in development, if not pre dev.... What is the impedance of the live action script/stories being so bad when they realistically have more adaptability while shooting?
You could argue that something like spiderverse works because animatiom gives freedom for it to be the way it does. Not only with the different artstyles for each dimension (something that clearly would be hard to translate to live action) but the way the characters move, their expressions while masked, the camera movements... add all of that to how different are the views of "real movie" and "animation" ( yes, it has improved, but animation is still taken way less seriously than live action ) and you can see why the animator are given more freedom to develop their things and how things can go so smoothly with that
the reason they will not spilt off the animated movie rights is because 1. Animated moves are more expensive., but more important 2. They take longer. spilting the rights like that means that without a doubt they'd loose those rights rapidly.
and as marvel was the other party in the original contract if they did make such a deal they would certainly modify the terms to account for that or they would not sign it
Okay but it’s not like marvel is even doing well with their recent projects with Disney so it would be a desperate move by them to sue Sony
Imagine a world where good movies where made without all this company nonsense 😔
For Spiderman 4 I want the friendly neighbourhood team up with Daredevil, give it more of a crime movie vibe. Kingpin main villian and he uses his contacts and money to give powers to ex-con Mac Gargan to create The Scorpion (Michael Mando) and certain cat burglar the Black Cat (and just to piss Sony off cast Sidney Sweeny as Felicia).
Almost every major actor in Sony's Spiderverse sealed their deals because they thought they were a part of the MCU. If agents doesn't know the difference, you can't expect the public to understand they're not the same.
...but Marvel is also harming the Marvel brand.
Yeah I noticed he left that out.
Fum products *ARE* vaporisers, they don't need to be electric to be a vaporiser. Vaporiser is to do with the delivery method, and if you taste the flavour the only way it got to your mouth if its not a liquid is if its a vapor, and thus vaporised. Fum's are inhalers and inhalers are by definition vaporisers, they just use pressure changes in the contents to shift the state into a vapor.
Lol bro get a life.
If anyone is to blame for brand confusion its Disney. They asked to put Spider-man in the Avengers, and the last MCU Spider-man movie screen time was dominated by Sony Characters (Doc Ock, Goblin, Lizard, Electro, Tobey, Garfield. Venom).
It is a huge stretch to blame Sony for "Brand Confusion", when Disney is the one that blurred the lines.
Sony had the Marvel logo on movies before Disney did. It makes since they should still have it. Otherwise people will start confusing Spider-man with DC.
Sony is doing such a disservice to this property, I don't want to watch anything Sony puts out anymore, they keep ruining things I grew up on.
How can they sue when they aren’t doing much better?
Sony needs to give up entirely or strike a deal giving control back to Marvel, if not ownership.
I've never met a Marvel fan that doesn't know the difference between MCU and Sony...
I honestly doubt marvel/ disney would have done any better. This is in keeping of their trend.
Talk about shortsighted..."In 1998, Sony had the chance to buy the rights to almost every Marvel character for $25 million. They chose to only buy the rights to Spider-Man for just $7 million. Sony said "Nobody gives a damn about the other Marvel characters."
O whatever, they are both guilty of pushing out crap and disney has no hi-ground to say bob's disney is innocent or capable of not creating FLOPS!
Bro, the use of the dog is cool as.
Reminds me so much of TheWhyFiles and Hecklefish.
What I don’t get is how a studio that made Into the Spiderverse and Across the Spiderverse, two of my fav movies of all time, also could make Morbius, Madame Webb, and the upcoming Kraven movie, which I don’t have high hopes for. Venom 1 was cool, not an amazing movie but a fun watch. Let there be Carnage was an unfortunate disappointment. At this point I wish Sony would just sell the rights back to Marvel but I absolutely and respectfully disagree with the valuation shared in the video. So far Tom Hollands Spiderman movies have made just shy of 4 Billion dollars so there’s no way in my mind that Sony would entertain anything that doesn’t have Billion in it. I honestly feel the valuation is closer to 2-10 Billion.
This is preposterous. Making a bad MADAME WEB movie won't affect Spider-Man rights.
"My girlfriend and I."
Am I the only person that rememners this from HS English?
"My friend and I......My Mom and I."
YOU don't come first, EVER.
I wish Marvel could just reclaim all their characters rights back … and take ownership of all the Sony movies too 😅
I wouldn't mind seeing a movie where the madame web characters were actually costumed heroes that focused on Sidney Sweeney/Spider Woman. I think one of the big reasons people hate the movie is they expected more of a costumed hero movie and didn't get it. So a movie that actually explores the future hinted at right at the end of the movie could be interesting if done right.
It wouldn't be Madame Web 2. It would be called Spider Woman. And I think Sweeney could make that work. Madame Web would be the older version, so Dakota wouldn't be back.
People 5-10 years from now are going to say they LOVED Madame Web. We've seen this happen time and time again. ugh
This may seem nitpicky, but I was a bit disappointed to hear an actual lawyer misuse the word "liable" when he actually meant "likely". "Liable" specifically refers to legal liability, and no-one can be ordered to think by a court of law - though at times I wish they could
The problem with filing a lawsuit against Sony is that it would instantly deteriorate the work relationship between them and Marvel. So Sony would immediately deprive us of the good Spider-Man movies that Marvel makes, and they would go on to crap on the character.
The solution, I believe, is Marvel cashing in big to buy Spider-Man back. The entirety of Marvel was bought by Disney for $4 billion in 2009. That's ALL of Marvel Entertainment, not one character.
Marvel could now offer a nice deal of $7-10 billion for Spider-Man and they would make them in a matter of years. If I were Sony I would take because on my own, I would never make that much money using Spider-Man.
Selling spiderman is the most stupid desigion ever
@@zeanone9257 desigion
@@AspiringAbogado decision
Lmaooo bro said f this madam went too farrr sue they a**😂😂😂😂😂😂
What makes it even more confusing is the cameo of marvel characters in Sony marvel post credit scenes for example tom hollands spiderman appearing as a post credit cameo in carnage. my friend had to explain to me that venom was not technically part of marvel and it is unlikely to happen. think even the actors get confused with this as well.
The fact that peter parker is not gay, or a minority is just a fact. And the movies should reflect the characters truth.
27:40 we’re not talking too many decades, they expire in 2058 that’s 40 years from Stan lee’s death😢
I have seen people online say, Madame Web is a bad Marvel movie. I also heard that Matt Smith, who was in Morbius, reached out to Karen Gillian, about what it is like to be in the MCU. Sony is straight up lying to people.
I see... but SONY should sue Marvel/Disney for implementing the DEI that drainded the pind and destroyed the super-hero industry. DC should join in!
I forget who made the comment, but one of you guys said that Dakota sounds bored when giving her lines. So when I tried to watch the pirated copy ( super clear. No one was in the movie theatre so I assume they set up a tripod and everything) her lack of interest made me uninterested. At least in Quantumania , Morbius, and The Marvels some of the cast sounded like they actually wanted to be there.