How does that make sense? Did Fox need permission from Sony to use Fisk in the Affleck Daredevil film?
Also, he learned about season 2 at the same time as us because there was nothing to shoot. Season one was supposed to be 22(?) episodes but got rejiggered to two 9 episode seasons.
The article doesn’t specifically name Sony, but since it’s probably them, I wonder if it’s a situation similar to Wanda & Pietro Maximoff?
Based on my reading elsewhere “New Regency” was the last company to hold the Daredevil rights (distributed by Fox), but those reverted to Marvel in 2015.
So the 2003 Daredevil film could use Wilson Fisk as a Daredevil character, but can’t reference Spider-Man. And the 2002 Spider-Man film could have used Wilson Fisk, but can’t reference Daredevil.
Just like Wanda & Pietro, they are “Avengers” characters, but we couldn’t call them “mutants”. Similarly the Fox X-Men could use Pietro as a “mutant”, but not as an “Avenger”.
If that’s true then technically they could probably make a Daredevil film with Fisk as the villain, but they can’t talk about Spider-Man. Unless there was something special in the revert to Marvel in 2015 that left live action film right for Daredevil exclusively with Sony.
We’ve seen Daredevil in live action film, but to be fair that was a Sony Spider-Man film. So it may loop around to not happening, unless Sony says yes. Which, if we assume the newly announced Spider-Man is a planned trilogy, I fully expect Sony to agree to having Daredevil & Spider-Man team up to take on Fisk in Spider-Man 5 or 6.
Ah I see. So… I would think Sony could use their own version of King Pin (They did in In To The Spider-verse), but the version in Daredevil belongs to Marvel.
But… couldn’t using King Pin in the next Spider-Man film satisfy the condition that all the Spider-Man films need another MCU character?
I dunno, it just seems to me that if Fox already put King Pin in a movie that Marvel would now be able to too, but being in a Spider-Man movie would require co-operation with Sony.
I’m thinking he’s saying this to throw us off the trail of a project he’s already working on.
While legally Sony can use Tom Holland Spider-Man whenever and wherever they want, see Morbius post-credit where Vulture appears and says “I think it has something to do with Spider-Man” or Venom 2 post-credits where Venom jumps into the MCU and sees Spider-Man.
I suspect they won’t actually jeopardize the Sony-Marvel/Disney relationship by actually using him, unless the two companies agree to use them (and associated properties) together.
I think Sony COULD introduce a new Kingpin, but they want to leave that position open for a deal with Marvel/Disney.
I think Marvel also could probably put Kingpin in a film, but doing so without Sony slightly jeopardizes future deals with Sony.
I also agree there are probably rumors of a future Sony deal, so this is a misdirect. (Although he might not actually have any insider knowledge.)
He might not actually know all the details too. We’re nerds who scrounge the internet for clues. Who owns the rights to what may not be that interesting to him and isn’t really necessary to do his job.
I work as a freelancer doing corporate AV. I know who I work for, but I often have no idea what the job is until the day before or so, and honestly I don’t care. :)
How does that make sense? Did Fox need permission from Sony to use Fisk in the Affleck Daredevil film?
Also, he learned about season 2 at the same time as us because there was nothing to shoot. Season one was supposed to be 22(?) episodes but got rejiggered to two 9 episode seasons.
The article doesn’t specifically name Sony, but since it’s probably them, I wonder if it’s a situation similar to Wanda & Pietro Maximoff?
Based on my reading elsewhere “New Regency” was the last company to hold the Daredevil rights (distributed by Fox), but those reverted to Marvel in 2015.
So the 2003 Daredevil film could use Wilson Fisk as a Daredevil character, but can’t reference Spider-Man. And the 2002 Spider-Man film could have used Wilson Fisk, but can’t reference Daredevil.
Just like Wanda & Pietro, they are “Avengers” characters, but we couldn’t call them “mutants”. Similarly the Fox X-Men could use Pietro as a “mutant”, but not as an “Avenger”.
If that’s true then technically they could probably make a Daredevil film with Fisk as the villain, but they can’t talk about Spider-Man. Unless there was something special in the revert to Marvel in 2015 that left live action film right for Daredevil exclusively with Sony.
We’ve seen Daredevil in live action film, but to be fair that was a Sony Spider-Man film. So it may loop around to not happening, unless Sony says yes. Which, if we assume the newly announced Spider-Man is a planned trilogy, I fully expect Sony to agree to having Daredevil & Spider-Man team up to take on Fisk in Spider-Man 5 or 6.
Ah I see. So… I would think Sony could use their own version of King Pin (They did in In To The Spider-verse), but the version in Daredevil belongs to Marvel.
But… couldn’t using King Pin in the next Spider-Man film satisfy the condition that all the Spider-Man films need another MCU character?
I dunno, it just seems to me that if Fox already put King Pin in a movie that Marvel would now be able to too, but being in a Spider-Man movie would require co-operation with Sony.
I’m thinking he’s saying this to throw us off the trail of a project he’s already working on.
I suspect the MCU Spider-Man is a special case.
While legally Sony can use Tom Holland Spider-Man whenever and wherever they want, see Morbius post-credit where Vulture appears and says “I think it has something to do with Spider-Man” or Venom 2 post-credits where Venom jumps into the MCU and sees Spider-Man.
I suspect they won’t actually jeopardize the Sony-Marvel/Disney relationship by actually using him, unless the two companies agree to use them (and associated properties) together.
I think Sony COULD introduce a new Kingpin, but they want to leave that position open for a deal with Marvel/Disney.
I think Marvel also could probably put Kingpin in a film, but doing so without Sony slightly jeopardizes future deals with Sony.
I also agree there are probably rumors of a future Sony deal, so this is a misdirect. (Although he might not actually have any insider knowledge.)
He might not actually know all the details too. We’re nerds who scrounge the internet for clues. Who owns the rights to what may not be that interesting to him and isn’t really necessary to do his job.
I work as a freelancer doing corporate AV. I know who I work for, but I often have no idea what the job is until the day before or so, and honestly I don’t care. :)