Sony Marvel Movies VS. Disney Marvel Movies
- Thread starter Roland33
- Start date
Marvel Studios, no contest.
Roland33
New Member
So marvel studios under disney or sony ?
Marvel Studios has only ever been under Disney, it's never been under Sony.
It started as it's own Studio and distributed it's early films under a deal with Paramount (except the Hulk which was under Universal's distribution) then Disney bought out the company from the first Avengers.
Roland33
New Member
Actually, Marvel superhero films of the early-mid 2000s were once owned by Sony Entertainment up until 2009 when Disney came in to take ownership due to a better deal. Aside from 2003 Hulk movie which was as you said under Universal's distribution, all the others were under 20th century fox, columbia pictures, and new line cinema as the studio of the time had licensed rights for those distributions.
Paul Andrew
Master Member
For the sake of clarity, Marvel Studios is a separate entity under the Disney corporation and has never been owned by Sony. I think you might be confusing it with the Marvel brand, which encompasses many different superheroes who's films had been made by different studios in the early 00's - prior to the rights being reverted or swallowed back up by Disney, which owns the Marvel brand now.
The lone property whose films rights has still not been reverted to Disney/Marvel (correct me if I'm wrong here guys) is the Spider-Man (and associated rogues gallery and main cast). Sony appears to intend to hang onto the Spider-Man rights indefinitely, as it enables them to use the characters in film and video games, more or less at their whim.
Roland33
New Member
I often wondered if the different studios like 20th century fox, columbia pictures, universal, and new line cinema back in the early-mid 2000s really did have licensed rights to the characters as they made their costumes look quite different? Since they weren't quite as comicbook accurate to the characters like they are now being under disney's umbrella...
Paul Andrew
Master Member
Marvel licensed the rights to different characters and teams to different studios due to financial troubles, iirc - but in doing so they let those studios have creative control over those films. Who's to say if comic accurate X-Men costumes would have worked or not in 2000? The suits didn't think they would, so we got black leather. But Marvel definitely did license the rights to their biggest properties to the film studios, because money.
Roland33
New Member
Ok thanks for explaining that part as I always wanted to know why...it appears they were trying to modernize their costumes to fit in with the 2000s era and all since they had more creative control over the characters at that time too...Even with Raimi's Spiderman, although it maintained the original color scheme and webbing design on the costume, they even had the creative control to tweak the spidey logos and eyes to make it kinda modern. Which is part of what made them feel more realistic and less cartoony compared to what disney is doing now...
As Paul said and I mentioned, Marvel Studios own the rights to their catalogue of MCU films and have always been their own studio who had a distribution deal with Paramount and were then bought by Disney.
Marvel Entertainment licencesed out the rights to certain characters to Sony/Colombia for them to make movies, namely Spiderman in the 2000s. Fox, New Line etc had the rights to X-Men and Blade respectively.
Marvel Studios has never been under Sony.
Roland33
New Member
Yupp I agree with everything Paul explained and I take back my comment...the characters were far more modernized and realistic looking back then before disney took control over them too.
Obviously personal preference, but Marvel Studios have done a much better job of making characters like Tony Stark, Captain America and even the GOTG work as realistic and able to all feel like part of a wider universe together.
Sony can't even make their own current live action spider man adjacent films work as standalone stories let alone a cohesive universe.
cboath
Master Member
That is because their only goal is to create a universe and not making good movies. They feel they are owed a universe and keep trying to start there instead of trying to earn it. Marvel, otoh, created iron man as a stand alone flick but knowing that if they did it right, they could add to it and maybe build towards something bigger. They did not go in with a massive ego as if they were guaranteed sucess because of who they were. You can argue they maybe fell asleep at the wheel after their success, but they earned their success.
Sony let raimi do his thing on spiderman 1 and 2 then meddlwd big time in 3 and were doing as much or more afterwards which killed a 4.
Similar threads
