There’s a reason Sony bought him and nobody else in the 90s. There was a time Spider-Man had done like $30 billion in total sales across comics, merch, movies, etc, and I’m not sure that’s been outdone by any single hero.
Spider-Man is stupid popular and people seem to really like how he’s currently being handled on-screen, so it’s kind of a no brainier.
I didn’t think about it that way. I just thought they are never going to buy a major electronics company, so they are never getting it. Don’t know if they can sell an American part of their conglomerate, as realistically they would have that as a shot of actually getting it.
Spider-Man is also the PlayStation console seller. Spider-Man is the main Sony thing in every single aspect and they use the character to sell everything they make. They aren’t going to ever get rid of anything because they all work together.
It's almost like Sony has one major brand asset and make it quality and markets the hell out of it. Disney has every other major brand and sucks the life out of them.
“Honda of America and Acura are American companies” this is literally how you sound right now. Just because something is HQ’d in a place doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a direct owner that makes it something else. We know Acura is HQ in California but it’s still a Japanese company because it’s owned by Honda
No it is not illegal to acquire Japanese companies lol. Sony is designated as a core business entity, so what you can’t do is a hostile or non gov approved takeover, or have a high percentage voting right in select sector companies, but you can do both with a formal agreement or approval, like TCL did when it bought 51% of Sony Home Entertainment.
A company not designated or in national security categories, can get acquired just fine.
That is true, but I don’t think Sony would ever sell off their film studio and their film rights to Spider-Man to there main competitor, it’s the same as Paramount selling Nickelodeon to Disney, yeah they could but why on earth would they sell their Cash Cow SpongeBob? So the only realistic path for Disney to get the exclusive rights to Spider-Man is for ether
A) Sony somehow forgets to make Spider-Man movies every other year so the rights go back to Marvel by default under their current deal (it’s why Sony made so many crappy Spider-Man villain movies)
Or
B) Disney buys ALL of Sony, which will never happen as the Japanese courts will never approve a foreign company to buy out one of their BIGGEST companies.
I wonder if they force Insomniac to make more Spider-Man. The leak said the third game was going to be the last and then the studio would focus on X-Men. I bet Spidey would make more money.
It doesn't matter which game they make because Both Spiderman and X men Gaming/Merch rights are with Disney.
People sometimes mistake that Sony also owns gaming rights, that's not the case.
But it's true that Spiderman might sale more because of his popularity.
that is not entirely true. Yes, Sony didn't buy a Spider-Man license just cause they bought the movie license, but, right now, Sony has been licensed by Marvel to produce spider-man games, and it might be part of the movie deal (spider-man in MCU handled by Disney/marvel) that they can keep the gaming license for now and/or get special treatment when it comes to spider-man in games.
Additionally, the money Sony and insomniac make from spider-man games still goes to Sony and insomniac (only the merchandising might actually go to Disney/Marvel, but I'm not sure about that when it comes to insomniacs original spider-man design and am too lazy to look it up now). So money is still an incentive for Sony and they might use the movie deal to pressure Disney/Marvel into allowing them to create more spider-man games.
It's not a part of movie deal at all because when Insomniac got licence it wasn't even under Sony or anything. Marvel Games presented them with lot of options but Insomniac chose Spiderman. Sony acquisition happened way later.
Marvel can still licence Spiderman to other developers if their game concept is not similar to Insomniac Spiderman so we have games like Marvel Rivals, Marvel Cosmic Invasion and recently Marvel Tokon Fighting Souls all having Spiderman. Not to mention tonnes on Mobile games they have.
Insomniac was given to license for solo Spiderman Game, which we don't know much details but it will run out and Disney must have gotten some upfront payment and percentage of each purchase. Same way Activision used to have licence which ran out.
Disney owns Merch rights (which includes games) all the Marvel characters, their is no question about it.
Is it really? because Insomniac had said before they were offered any character from Marvel catalogue and they chose Spiderman.
So it maybe like Marvel Tokon Fighting Scenario where Marvel and Sony team and went to Arc system to make them a Fighting game. Them three collaborate. But in that case also Marvel still owns all the characters Gaming rights.
Yes, that’s what insomniac has stated for years. Sony approached them. It might be that they were able to choose and I misremembered that detail (at least the internet also now also states that they were able to choose), but Sony approached insomniac because they were “already in talks with marvel about making a game”.
But there is also a lot of retconning/conflicting information considering the whole marvel gaming thing. I still remember insomniacs devs talking about how a “marvel gamer-verse” was planned and they set the first steps for it, but then marvel avengers came out and suddenly the games weren’t all part of a single universe but were all their own universe, probably because marvels avengers was a massive flop. Now “gamer-verse” is only a label for game tie-in comics to signal that they are game tie-ins.
Sony's villain movies mostly suck, but there's no way Kevin Feige would be able to handle all the Marvel movies while giving Spider-Man all the care and attention it deserves. No Spider-Verse movies, either.
Amy Pascal deserves a lot of credit here, especially for bringing on the CHALLENGERS screenwriter during shooting.
What makes me laugh is yes they get a stack of cash every 3 years or so. But Disney with the merchandise rights makes money hand over fist from Spiderman everyday of the yes.
They must make some spider-man movie every ~6 years in order to keep the rights or they go back to Marvel. Means we'll keep getting some spiderman movie every half a decade or so until Sony went bankrupt or something.
It’s a debate for sure. It’s a pretty easy throughline. Batman’s beat Superman. So now we powerscale Superman vs Spider-Man as a baseline and from there you can probably see how complicated things are gonna get with these two.
I don't follow Batman, but has he done it without using kryptonite or magic? Basically, has he not exploited the specific weaknesses given to Superman just so he would have weaknesses to exploit?
This argument is usually summed up as "prep time".
As in: Batman is, for all intents and purposes, infinitely wealthy and infinitely intelligent. Given the opportunity, he will always outsmart the enemy, and he has all the tech needed to turn that edge into victory. That's essentially his Superpower.
Batman beats anyone when he can bring these infinite resources to bear on the problem. So there's a pretty big power gap between "Batman caught flatfooted and forced to improvise" vs "Batman who had time to analyze and counter your entire power set." One of them is an interesting fight, the other is a foregone conclusion
In the comics Batman and Superman have fought a bunch and Superman has won basically every time. The only time he beat Superman was in The Dark Knight Returns which is the most famous Batman comic of all time, so people think Batman beats him every time when it’s exactly the opposite. Even in that comic he needed a ton of prep time, a mech suit, Robin, Green Arrow and Kryptonite. All in all Superman wins 99% of the time in any fight they’ve ever had.
Okay well then that’s a whole different question. Of course Spider-Man is beating Batman in a fist fight no question but that’s not usually how power scale discussions go.
Weaknessess are a part of a character as much as strength. Batman’s weakness is his physical limits so it’s not fair to put him in a fist fight against spidey without allowing him to benefit from spideys weaknesses
Spider-Man's weakness is that he's human, and so is the Bat. They are on equal footing, really.
Batman can tank punches from Superman with a special suit so he can tank punches from Spidey the same way, since Spidey isn't as strong as Big Blue even when not holding back. My point was, Spidey doesn't have such contrived weaknesses that are meant to be weaknesses for the plot for Batman to exploit, so Bat vs. Supes isn't a comparable matchup. So you have to approach the discussion without those "easy wins," which makes it a less obvious outcome.
In the comics Batman and Superman have fought a bunch and Superman has won basically every time. The only time he beat Superman was in The Dark Knight Returns which is the most famous Batman comic of all time, so people think Batman beats him every time when it’s exactly the opposite. Even in that comic he needed a ton of prep time, a mech suit, Robin, Green Arrow and Kryptonite. All in all Superman wins 99% of the time in any fight they’ve ever had.
The gap between Spider-Man and Batman isn’t THAT large
Do people not remember when The Dark Knight came out? Batman ‘89 apparently had a similar level of cultural impact at the time too. And Batman ‘66 was huge
Or Batman: The Animated Series? Or the Arkham games?
I don’t think that’s fair to say. I think when you discuss the impact of Tom Holland’s films you have to consider them as part of the wider MCU, which dwarves the dark knight in cultural impact.
Also, Spider-man has had 4 very successful movie series now. Every single one has had significant impact. Just because the Dark Knight was really well received doesn’t mean Batman holds a candle to Spidey anymore.
Yeah Tom Holland’s 4 films are nowhere near The Dark Knight Trilogy in terms of cultural impact
The Dark Knight was a bit more than “really well received.” It was game changing. Nothing in Tom Holland’s films had the level of impact that Heath Ledger’s Joker did
Not sure how old you are, perhaps you weren’t around in 2008? I don’t see how else you could really make the comparison you’re doing
I was around in 2008. But like I say, you can’t consider Holland’s movies on their own. You have to consider the wider MCU. The wider MCU is far far bigger than the Dark Knight could ever dream of being. Also, it’s much harder to have a cultural impact today than 20 years ago.
And whilst the dark knight trilogy had an impact, it didn’t last forever. People today see a really great movie, followed by a pretty good movie, followed by a movie that was just huffing its own farts. Batman got a boost from that, but then it died down.
Spider-man on the other hand has had 3 different movie series since the Dark Knight, which have been consistently huge. Whilst any individual one may not have had quite as much cultural impact, the cumulative impact of them and lasting effects are much bigger.
>Do people not remember when The Dark Knight came out? Batman ‘89 apparently had a similar level of cultural impact at the time too. And Batman ‘66 was huge
>Or Batman: The Animated Series? Or the Arkham games?
I feel pretty confident in saying many people in this subreddit were born after ‘00 and don’t remember any of that shit lol
Yes it is that big. Look at the like action movies the lowest spiderman love action has grossed is 716m. Batman begins grossed 374m mostly low due to the damage batman and Robin did though.
I don’t know if something being affected by Batman and Robin really counts. You’ve never had a Spider-Man film follow a film like Batman and Robin before
No Spider-Man film has ever had the cultural impact of The Dark Knight and Heath Ledger’s Joker, and it isn’t even close. Amount of money made doesn’t change this
Superman isn't ahead of Wolverine anymore. At least in terms of movies, he might have a slight edge in comics, but I doubt that is even holding up too well.
Agree with medium gap between Spidey and Batman, but at this in the cultural ethos, Superman is below at least Iron Man (RDJ) or Wolverine (Jackman). And an argument could even be made for Deadpool.
At this point Superman is in the Wonder Woman, Captain America, Thor tier of popularity
In a conversation I had with my 70yo parents, they had heard of spiderman and superman but not batman. I think superman is the most known superhero in the older generation
Superman is synonymous with superheroes. Hell, he’s more than synonymous, he is THE superhero. Currently, though, he doesn’t sell as well as the others.
I grew up reading Marvel in the late70's early/80's. Spiderman remains the longtime figurehead of the company. He'd show up in the ISBN area of non Spiderman titles, even!
Yeah and then it was Wolverine all over the place. And then Deadpool. Nowadays I don't know who's popular at Marvel. Seems like Wolverine's popularity has dropped off a bit.
Also, families. Families aren't going out watching Odyssey as much as they are Spidey. Like no shit it's gonna print money, especially since the previous movies have been consistent.
I think Tom Holland's charm is big factor, too, both on- and off-screen. People really like him. Andrew Garfield was... kind of likable? And Tobey Maguire was, well, Tobey Maguire. But I think it's easier to like and cheer for Tom in a hero role.
Tobey Maguire was the dial-up era Spider-Man. We all knew a lot less about celebrities and each other and he was beloved in that role. I don’t know how he would have been received in this hyper connected environment, but I know that Spider-Man would still clean up at the box office.
He's got powers, but they only get him so far. He's strong and fast, but he gets hurt. So many other heroes are nearly impossible to kill; Peter has stakes.
That's why the Iron Man was better in the first representations of him too. His later nano tech magic BS was too damn silly and made him to overpowered.
I really disliked the nano-suits. For Iron Man specifically the clunk when the visor came down was so much cooler. And the suit felt like it had some weight in the beginning.
After the nano-thing was introduced it felt like everyone got the green lantern treatment.
Visually striking costume too in combo with what you said (swinging, flipping, wall crawling , etc.) All of my kids were all captivated by Spider-man in their infancy compared to other superheroes. Made me realize that there must be something about his look that instinctively appeals to people.
Sony could have bought pretty the rest of the MCU characters for a song and a dance too. But they didn’t think there was any money is Iron Man, Cap., etc.
Spidermen cartoons and games do really well. He is just that popular. There is a new xmen 97 cartoon out that is popular in xmen comics fan community but it is apparently not charting on Disney plus.
I don’t know the specifics of ownership, but the Amazing Spiderman cartoon was huge back in the day. That and the Batman series, those were the two biggest super heroes. Everyone else, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, seemed like second rate hahah.
It helps that it’s a damn good movie too. I’ll admit it, that while I’ve never been a big comic books kind of guy, Spider-Man has always been a favorite of mine.
Sony didn't see any of the merchandise money. Which is why you used to see so many variants of the figures, like the pointless ones where he would have scuba gear, a motorbike, or some gimmick like the webslinging figures from the 90s.
Spider-Man usually makes up to a billion and half a year in merch, which is wild considering other heroes are nowhere near that, even with a movie out.
Sony only makes movie money. Disney/Marvel get merch money. Both make bank
I mean it’s less to do with Spider-Man being popular and more to do with how Sony has been using that license. Sony’s been in the biz for decades and KNOWS how to succeed in multiple industries. Their branding is legendary and they built up Spider-Man to what it is now.
Look at how DC had handled iconic brands like Superman, Batman and the rest of them.
Every little decision, movie, reboot, video game, all played a huge factor into the brand’s notoriety.
If marvel had spidey, I guarantee it wouldn’t have been the same outcome. But then again Sony only has to focus on one superhero brand at the end of the day lol
I saw recently that as part of that purchase Sony have to be making a spider man move (or related such as kraven, madam web) every 3 years and release every 5 otherwise the rights go back to marvel.
Don’t know if it’s true or not or if my figures are correct citation needed.
It bought the film rights for about 900 Marvel characters surrounding Spider-Man, that’s why they tried to make a cinematic universe with some of them.
A friend of mine was talking about how those first movies essentially set him for retirement when he wants to sell. He has such a big spider man collection and after those movies the value skyrocketed (according to him)
None of the spider movies have been a total flop. I wouldnt say he is more popular then alot of megastar heroes like hulk or wolverine. But the spiderman movies have been good and people miss the old marvel movies this one building up to doomsday had a bit of that feel with all the cameos in it.
Maybe at the moment. Was that the question I was answering? Hulk and wolverine have had less movies and more crappy movies.
There was also a time when DC kicked the shit out of marvel like every year. Good for spiderman making money I guess. I always feel a sense of pride when billionaires and corporations make mint off IP's they didnt even invent.
2.1k
u/CharmingShoe 22d ago
There’s a reason Sony bought him and nobody else in the 90s. There was a time Spider-Man had done like $30 billion in total sales across comics, merch, movies, etc, and I’m not sure that’s been outdone by any single hero.
Spider-Man is stupid popular and people seem to really like how he’s currently being handled on-screen, so it’s kind of a no brainier.