Spiderman is [no longer] out of the MCU

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Sony has proven to be incompetent...Marvel has not, who you gonna trust?

But Marvel's not making a trivial ask here.

They're asking for ten times the profits of their original agreement; they were getting 5% and now they want 50%. That's not nothing.

From a strictly dollars and cents standpoint, Marvel has to be hugely responsible for the profits here to make this work. Moreover, nothing says Sony couldn't go back if momentum dries up.

For instance, lets say they agree with Marvel and Feige directs and the next Spiderman makes $1B in gross - well generally speaking you're talking in the 40-45% range in terms of how much of the gross actually gets back to the studios after theaters, etc... are paid. So lets just say $425 million back to the studio.

now we have a $160 million budget. Let's chip in another $100 million for marketing costs (which seems conservative but we'll stand there). Now we're down to $165 million in profits and that's BEFORE we get to additional incidentals like profit cuts for key figures in production. Then you add back in rentals, on demand, etc... but you can't include merchandising because Sony already lost that.

Now this mostly becomes a wild-ass guess at this point but let's say that there's a pool of roughly $300 million in profit available to Sony and Marvel after all is said and done there. Everyone's paid and all the revenue streams have paid roughly what they're gonna pay - that seem fair? If not, why not?

Let's work from that - Marvel wants $150 million of it under the new agreement. Leaving $150 million behind for Sony.

Sony can easily coast on the momentum of 'Into the Spiderverse' (which kicked ass without Marvel's help) and make at least a couple of movies with profits in excess of the $150 million they'd end up with after Marvel's cut. And that's all they need to do - coast. They can make at least one of them and if it's good, they've make another one. And if it's a success, another.

Venom got great returns and made a ton of money without Feige and the MCU. Sony can do that with Spiderman, especially now that they have momentum on their side. And they don't have to be as successful as they would've been - just 51% as successful. If so, they'll be money ahead. And if (when?) the momentum stalls - you go back to Marvel and discuss another merger.

But Sony's gambling on themselves a bit and that's not a terrible idea. They've shown some signs that they may not suck at this right now.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

But Marvel's not making a trivial ask here.

They're asking for ten times the profits of their original agreement; they were getting 5% and now they want 50%. That's not nothing.

From a strictly dollars and cents standpoint, Marvel has to be hugely responsible for the profits here to make this work. Moreover, nothing says Sony couldn't go back if momentum dries up.

For instance, lets say they agree with Marvel and Feige directs and the next Spiderman makes $1B in gross - well generally speaking you're talking in the 40-45% range in terms of how much of the gross actually gets back to the studios after theaters, etc... are paid. So lets just say $425 million back to the studio.

now we have a $160 million budget. Let's chip in another $100 million for marketing costs (which seems conservative but we'll stand there). Now we're down to $165 million in profits and that's BEFORE we get to additional incidentals like profit cuts for key figures in production. Then you add back in rentals, on demand, etc... but you can't include merchandising because Sony already lost that.

Now this mostly becomes a wild-ass guess at this point but let's say that there's a pool of roughly $300 million in profit available to Sony and Marvel after all is said and done there. Everyone's paid and all the revenue streams have paid roughly what they're gonna pay - that seem fair? If not, why not?

Let's work from that - Marvel wants $150 million of it under the new agreement. Leaving $150 million behind for Sony.

Sony can easily coast on the momentum of 'Into the Spiderverse' (which kicked ass without Marvel's help) and make at least a couple of movies with profits in excess of the $150 million they'd end up with after Marvel's cut. And that's all they need to do - coast. They can make at least one of them and if it's good, they've make another one. And if it's a success, another.

Venom got great returns and made a ton of money without Feige and the MCU. Sony can do that with Spiderman, especially now that they have momentum on their side. And they don't have to be as successful as they would've been - just 51% as successful. If so, they'll be money ahead. And if (when?) the momentum stalls - you go back to Marvel and discuss another merger.

But Sony's gambling on themselves a bit and that's not a terrible idea. They've shown some signs that they may not suck at this right now.

Yeah, I'm not hard on Sony here. Especially since Spiderman was being groomed as Iron Man's heir apparent on the team and is the most recognizable hero left in the Avengers.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

They're asking for ten times the profits of their original agreement; they were getting 5% and now they want 50%. That's not nothing.

I could be wrong on this, but I don't think those two percentages are apples-to-apples comparisons. The 5% is described as "first dollar gross," which I would take to mean it's a pure 5% of revenue (and expenses don't matter). The other arrangement Disney was proposing was "50/50 co-financing," which I would interpret as both of them have an equal stake in both the expenses and revenues (so Disney gets 50% of the profits rather than 5% of the gross revenue).

I'm sure that the 50/50 still is massively better for Disney than the 5%, but I don't THINK your assessment that it would be "ten times the profits" is accurate.

EDIT: To further disclaim this, I'm only about 75% sure I'm understanding this correctly, but using figures from Far From Home, the film looks like it made about $1.1 billion worldwide, so Disney's share would be about $55 million. If you remove 3x production budget from that (which I've heard is a rough rule of thumb for total budget including marketing and distribution), that would mean Disney would have gotten like $310 million. So yeah, Disney's proposal is still massively different than the status quo. However, the 5% version says that "If the film tanks, Disney still gets paid," while the 50/50 version says "If the film tanks, Disney takes a hit just like Sony." So it's not COMPLETELY in Disney's favor do move to the latter arrangement.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I could be wrong on this, but I don't think those two percentages are apples-to-apples comparisons. The 5% is described as "first dollar gross," which I would take to mean it's a pure 5% of revenue (and expenses don't matter). The other arrangement Disney was proposing was "50/50 co-financing," which I would interpret as both of them have an equal stake in both the expenses and revenues (so Disney gets 50% of the profits rather than 5% of the gross revenue).

I'm sure that the 50/50 still is massively better for Disney than the 5%, but I don't THINK your assessment that it would be "ten times the profits" is accurate.

EDIT: To further disclaim this, I'm only about 75% sure I'm understanding this correctly, but using figures from Far From Home, the film looks like it made about $1.1 billion worldwide, so Disney's share would be about $55 million. If you remove 3x production budget from that (which I've heard is a rough rule of thumb for total budget including marketing and distribution), that would mean Disney would have gotten like $310 million. So yeah, Disney's proposal is still massively different than the status quo. However, the 5% version says that "If the film tanks, Disney still gets paid," while the 50/50 version says "If the film tanks, Disney takes a hit just like Sony." So it's not COMPLETELY in Disney's favor do move to the latter arrangement.

Yeah, if anyone wants to disagree with anything I said there, I'll defer. I know **** all about this apart from some back of the napkin calculations I could find.

But it certainly appears that Disney is asking for a WAY bigger cut. And that it was big enough for Sony to justify taking a pretty big risk in walking away.

That means something.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah, if anyone wants to disagree with anything I said there, I'll defer. I know **** all about this apart from some back of the napkin calculations I could find.

But it certainly appears that Disney is asking for a WAY bigger cut. And that it was big enough for Sony to justify taking a pretty big risk in walking away.

That means something.

Yep, no disagreement.

[Simply Red]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah, if anyone wants to disagree with anything I said there, I'll defer. I know **** all about this apart from some back of the napkin calculations I could find.

But it certainly appears that Disney is asking for a WAY bigger cut. And that it was big enough for Sony to justify taking a pretty big risk in walking away.

That means something.

Exactly this.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

But Marvel's not making a trivial ask here.

They're asking for ten times the profits of their original agreement; they were getting 5% and now they want 50%. That's not nothing.

From a strictly dollars and cents standpoint, Marvel has to be hugely responsible for the profits here to make this work. Moreover, nothing says Sony couldn't go back if momentum dries up.

For instance, lets say they agree with Marvel and Feige directs and the next Spiderman makes $1B in gross - well generally speaking you're talking in the 40-45% range in terms of how much of the gross actually gets back to the studios after theaters, etc... are paid. So lets just say $425 million back to the studio.

now we have a $160 million budget. Let's chip in another $100 million for marketing costs (which seems conservative but we'll stand there). Now we're down to $165 million in profits and that's BEFORE we get to additional incidentals like profit cuts for key figures in production. Then you add back in rentals, on demand, etc... but you can't include merchandising because Sony already lost that.

Now this mostly becomes a wild-ass guess at this point but let's say that there's a pool of roughly $300 million in profit available to Sony and Marvel after all is said and done there. Everyone's paid and all the revenue streams have paid roughly what they're gonna pay - that seem fair? If not, why not?

Let's work from that - Marvel wants $150 million of it under the new agreement. Leaving $150 million behind for Sony.

Sony can easily coast on the momentum of 'Into the Spiderverse' (which kicked ass without Marvel's help) and make at least a couple of movies with profits in excess of the $150 million they'd end up with after Marvel's cut. And that's all they need to do - coast. They can make at least one of them and if it's good, they've make another one. And if it's a success, another.

Venom got great returns and made a ton of money without Feige and the MCU. Sony can do that with Spiderman, especially now that they have momentum on their side. And they don't have to be as successful as they would've been - just 51% as successful. If so, they'll be money ahead. And if (when?) the momentum stalls - you go back to Marvel and discuss another merger.

But Sony's gambling on themselves a bit and that's not a terrible idea. They've shown some signs that they may not suck at this right now.

Marvel can also kill off spiderman again. Which I heard is happening. Stop games from being made and action figures. Let Sony kill off profits themselves like they did with Garfield. Marvel has shown they will play the long game.

Hopefully they compromise.

Wonder if the mcu cod create a new character. Now that it is known who Spidey is. He needs. New identity. Then start right after far from home with that.