Taylor Swift called out the White House after she won the 2019 MTV Video Music Awards' top prize — video of the year — for her LGBTQ pride anthem, "You Need To Calm Down."
The "Lover" songstress opened the show at the Prudential Center in Newark, N.J., with a performance of the hit song. Swift was flanked by colorful dancers, then brought it back to her roots by bringing out her guitar to sing the title track of her new album "Lover."
Taylor Swift arriving at the MTV Video Music Awards at the Prudential Center on Monday in Newark, N.J. (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP)
The words "Equality Act" were shown over the 29-year-old pop star's performance, a reference to her support of the Equality Act legislation that would prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
After winning the top prize, the 29-year-old pop star and a number of cast members from the video appeared onstage to accept the honor.
"I just want to say that this is a fan-voted award. So, I first want to say thank you to the fans because in this video, several points were made, so you voting for this video means that you want a world where we're all treated equally," Swift said.
She continued: "Regardless of who we are, regardless of how we identify, at the end of this video there was a petition -- and there still is a petition for the Equality Act, which basically just says we all deserve equal rights under the law.
"And, I want to thank everyone who signed that petition because it now has half-a-million signatures, which is five times the amount that it would need to warrant a response from the White House," added Swift while accepting the award. She then looked down at her wrist and tapped on it, seemingly referencing a watch.
The video for "You Need to Calm Down" -- which also won the video for good honor -- finishes with the words: "Let's show our pride by demanding that, on a national level, our laws truly treat all of our citizens equally." Before the video's release, Swift announced that she supported the Equality Act.
Earlier in the show, Cardi B's "Money" won the Best Hip-Hop award — the first televised award of the night.
"I can't hear myself," she said as fans chanted her name. "Let me do my speech now." The 26-year-old rapper went on to thank Jora Frantzis, who directed her "Money" clip, as well as her glam team.
While presenting Best Latin Music Video, Alison Brie and French Montana put a spotlight on immigration activism: “I’m so proud to pronounce this award because as an immigrant I feel like we are the people that make his country, and I feel like I want to be a voice," Montana said.
Added Brie: "What’s happening to immigrants in this country is unconstitutional and frankly disgusting."
Missy Elliott proved why she's one of the best and innovative rappers of all time with an incredible medley of her most famous songs and music video looks from the black puffy bag dress for "The Rain (Supa Dupa Fly)" to camouflage for "Get Ur Freak On."
The Grammy-winning rapper, who made a triumphant return to the VMAs for the first time since 2003, was backed up by a talented group of dancers for songs like "Work It," and "Pass That Dutch" and "Lose Control."
Holding her Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award, she said she would try to hold back the tears, but the award meant so much to her.
She thanked Janet Jackson, calling her an inspiration for her music videos, along with Madonna and Busta Rhymes, and said she missed singer Aaliyah, who died 18 years ago in a plane crash.
She dedicated the award to the dance community as her dancers erupted behind her, saying, "Y'all are the icing on the cake, y'all are the beat to the heart."
Fox News' Jessica Napoli, Julius Young and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Browsing through a demo of Disney’s upcoming streaming service, Disney+, the most striking thing about it is the stark contrast with its biggest competitor: Netflix. Where Netflix is overflowing with content trying to catch subscribers’ attention, Disney+ feels comparatively barren. Like Apple TV’s library of apps, Disney’s service is almost surgically clean in its design precision. But the specific ways its content is compartmentalized might be divisive.
The density difference makes sense: in 2018, Netflix had approximately 1,570 TV shows and 4,000 movies available for streaming. At launch, Disney+ will have approximately 500 movies and 7,000 individual TV episodes. But whereas Netflix can feel like disorganized chaos, every section of Disney+ is broken down into its own pocket, like Apple TV. Sitting down for a hands-on Disney+ preview at D23, Disney’s biennial convention in Anaheim, California — just across the street from Disneyland — the difference between Netflix and Disney+ couldn’t have been clearer.
In part, that’s because Disney’s upcoming service has different goals. “From a technical level or UI level, I haven’t really compared it to Netflix,” Michael Paull, Disney’s streaming services president, told The Verge.
“As a principle, we wanted a simple, elegant experience,” Paull said. “We want to make this easy. We don’t want the product to get in the way of the content.”
“Simple” may be the best word to describe Disney+. Its interface divides content into rows that people can scroll through based on personalized recommendations, new releases, and curated selections. The top row of the app has a carousel with a few priority titles to scroll through, including new theatrical releases Disney wants to highlight (Captain Marvelshowed up on my demo) and Disney+ originals. There’s also a row for featured shows and movies that will be curated in-house, according to Paull. Right now, it’s mostly comprised of big theatrical releases and Disney classics, but that could change, Paull said. In the same way Netflix has started to use its featured section to primarily highlight its original content, there’s a good chance that Disney+ originals will take up a majority of that row.
The most obvious and interesting part of the Disney+ homepage is a selection of Disney subsections: Star Wars, Disney, Pixar, Marvel, and National Geographic. It’s clear this is how the company wants people to use the app, to hone in on their favorite brands or franchises.
People “generally know what they’re interested in” when they open the app, Michael Cerda, vice president of product on Disney+, told The Verge. If you’re looking for Star Wars content like the new Mandalorian spinoff series, or the few Marvel movies Disney+ will launch with, people want them in the same space, he continued. Think of these subdivisions as almost entirely separate apps. They host collections of titles from every franchise and brand that Disney wants to highlight. The Simpsons, for example, has a huge section. People can go into that area, then scroll through each individual season to find an episode to watch. It’s similar to how shows on Hulu operate.
It’s within these collection-specific areas that Disney+’s designers really earn their due. Every movie or TV show has a beautiful back page to greet viewers. Take Captain Marvel: clicking on the movie will open a separate page with a couple of options, including the ability to read details about the movie (casting and so forth) or scroll through other recommended titles. Users can also click on an icon at the top of the page to add a title to their queue. Users on mobile devices will also be able to download movies for offline viewing directly from the page.
But what if people aren’t interested in just exploring what Marvel, Star Wars, or even National Geographic offer? Disney+ also features a sidebar that people can use to navigate between TV series, movies, and the Disney+ Originals category, which will host movies like Disney’s exclusively streaming live-action remake of Lady and the Tramp, or series like Marvel’s upcoming spinoff series Loki.
The name has already led to some confusion online, though. Take Lady and the Tramp, which Disney refers to as an “Original Film” on its official poster. People on Twitter wondered whether that designation meant the original animated movie, or the new live-action adaptation. The terminology question has come up with the Disney+ team, too, Paull says, but he couldn't comment on it further.
Fortunately, that’s the only openly confusing part of Disney+. Scrolling through separate compartments by collection might seem tedious, but it isn’t. Having different sections means it’s easier to browse without finding the content as overwhelming as the collections on Netflix and Hulu — though again, that’s partly because there’s less of it.
Disney is also investing in personalized recommendations, which get their own row on the homepage. Recommendations are necessary for streaming platforms, especially as they continue to grow. Netflix runs approximately 400 A/B tests on its service every year just dedicated to its recommendation algorithm. It’s also led to frustration among subscribers and creators alike, who have accused Netflix’s recommendation algorithm of not surfacing specific shows or movies. That’s not an issue for Paull and his team right now, but it’s something they’re thinking about.
“We actually have been fortunate in that we have a pretty strong team focused on personalization and recommendations,” he said. “Our job is hard, but it’s not as hard, because our content strategy is about quality, not quantity. Our content’s about curation.”
The focus on curation is a big reason why the company decided to launch a separate kids’ app section inside its platform. Deciding to build a kids’ section on an app where nothing will be rated higher than PG-13 might seem unnecessary, but Paull said there are a couple of reasons the team thought it was important. Unlike Disney+’s main homepage, which is largely driven by text on top of images, the kids’ version is driven primarily by photos of characters from movies and TV shows. This is because kids, especially those under age seven, don’t really read. They associate with characters, Paull said. So the design is extremely different: the section is brighter and bubblier than the homepage, and it’s full of Disney characters.
The other reason is something people might not think about when it comes to Disney content: even within the PG-13 rating, Disney has some violent films that kids might not be ready for. Avengers: Endgame, for example, has a scene where Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) uses a katana to slice a man’s throat before killing him.
That’s where individual profiles come in. Disney+ has a profile-creation process where users navigate a selection of avatars from its movies and TV shows: heroes from Marvel movies, Star Wars characters, and Pixar favorites. Accounts can have up to seven profiles, either designated for kids or as standard accounts.
The biggest takeaway from going hands-on with Disney+ is that it feels familiar. Between Netflix and Hulu (not to mention the myriad niche services), streaming users have grown accustomed to a fairly standardized interface and set of features on streaming platforms. As the streaming wars heat up — as WarnerMedia’s HBO Max, NBCUniversal, and even Apple prepare to launch their own streaming services — it feels like apart from price and content, the user experience will be one of the biggest factors in determining who comes out on top. Paull doesn’t disagree — entirely. The “user interface is very important,” according to Paull, who says “being able to create a design that fits the brand, and that allows people to find the programming they want that doesn’t get in the way is incredibly important.” The only thing he disagrees on? The “streaming wars” label for the coming conflict between online content services.
“I don’t see this as a war,” Paull said, laughing. “I see this as nothing but a big win for the consumer.”
Kim Kardashian admitted that she has a favorite sister, and it’s Khloe Kardashian! She explained why she’s crazy for Koko in a candid ‘Vogue Arabia’ interview.
Leave it to Kanye West to get Kim Kardashian to open up in one of her most candid interviews ever. Kanye interviewed his wife in a unique, honest interview for Vogue Arabia’s September issue, asking her about everything under the sun, including her Paris robbery, studying law, and the lessons she’s learned from being famous. But maybe the juiciest tidbit? She revealed who her favorite sister is! She admitted that it was an impossible decision, but she named the lucky lady anyway: her younger sister, Khloe Kardashian!
“It changes, just like friends or relationships go in and out. I think this year has been a really strong Kim and Khloe year,” she revealed to Kanye. “I’m obviously so close with Kendall and Kylie too but I’ve spent so much more time on this earth with Kourtney and Khloe – 16 and 17 years longer with them. We have more history, have been through so much together, and we have more friends in common. Kourtney and I will always be really close, but this year, Khloe and I really bonded.”
No siblings are closer than the Kardashian Jenner clan. And Kim makes it clear that she’s not trying to exclude her sisters, or her brother, Rob Kardashian. It’s just that this year, she and Khloe have clicked more than ever! After all, they had their babies,True Thompson and Chicago West, mere weeks apart in early 2018. With one year old babies on their hands, of course they’re together constantly during playtime!
Txema Yeste/Vogue Arabia
The whole Kardashian-Jenner family has rallied around Khloe, actually. With the news that her ex, Lamar Odom, would be competing on Dancing With The Stars, her family is worried that he’ll start talking openly about them again. “Everyone wishes Lamar well,” a source revealed to HollywoodLife EXCLUSIVELY. “The show tends to dive deep into personal lives… it’s safe to say they won’t be tuning in.”
If you were ever a teenager in America, there’s a good chance that, at some point in your youth, you spent at least one night of your life watching in rapt attention as MTV’s Video Music Awards unspooled in front of you, from the first moment of backstage hype to the desultory closing minutes, an ending usually defined by a musical act fighting valiantly against the collective knowledge that this fucking thing is over already. You probably didn’t care who won—unless you made a few phone calls and/or texts to vote for a particular artist—so much as you were there for the spectacle. Which makes sense; that’s always been the point of the VMAs. They’re designed purely in hopes of generating water-cooler conversation moments.
Which is precisely why there are fewer and fewer such instances actually birthed each year. As any person (or corporation, just as often) that’s tried to artificially bump something to the front page of Reddit has discovered, you can’t plan in advance what people will care about. You can’t make something “go viral.” And you sure as shit can’t engineer stunts guaranteed to get people talking. All of which is bad news for MTV, which has done everything in its power over the past 35 years to breed out any potential for spontaneity or unexpected surprises during its broadcast. MTV wants stage-managed chaos, rigorously rehearsed moments of faux controversy, and spectacle-filled wackiness meticulously planned within an inch of its life. It wants the credibility and cache of free-wheeling celebrity antics without the actual presence of such behavior. And what it definitely doesn’t want is surprises. MTV hates surprises.
This isn’t a shock, obviously, any more than it would be a shock to learn that publicly traded companies only donate to nonprofits in hopes of generating publicity and consumer goodwill. MTV is a business, and like any business, it wants to be in control of as much of its practices as possible. True, its earliest employees may have received memos instructing them to stop using their key cards to cut their cocaine, as it was interfering with the electronic security system, but the ’80s were a long time ago, and even then, the channel’s corporate heads were all about management and brand control. Like a lot of businesses, MTV would rather run smoothly than be a bit more successful, because people in boardrooms don’t like to worry about their jobs. (They prefer to leave that to the rest of us.) Launched in 1981 because American Express bought Warner Cable as a way to sell more credit cards via TV, by 1985—one year after the first VMA ceremony aired—MTV had gone public as a stand-alone entity, and its business practices soon looked a lot less like the raucous clash of money-meets-art that had so long defined the music industry, and more like standard operating procedure for any Fortune 500 company.
While much of this transformation played out behind the scenes at the company (some of it detailed in the book I Want My MTV: The Uncensored Story Of The Music Video Revolution), you can see a longer, more drawn-out version of the channel’s increasing commodification and corporatization play out on screen by watching the VMAs over the years, from its rough and ramshackle first iteration to its hollowed-out, gimcrack recent years. It’s important to note this isn’t about the transformation of popular music from largely white-guy-dominated rock to the hip-hop- and R&B-derived pop that now drives the mainstream music industry—MTV’s institutional racism and prejudice against black artists in the ’80s was certainly an issue, but glossy pop artists were just as often the leading insurrectionaries back in the day, and image-conscious rock bands were conversely extremely willing to take orders about their look, behavior, and even musical endeavors.
No, what it’s about is the difference between surprise and stunt, between disruption and deliverables, between the playful spirit of combative performers and the stringent guidelines of producers intent on smoothing out any televised hiccups. It’s about the efforts of MTV to run a tight, well-orchestrated ship of performances against the efforts of the people who actually make the music people tune in to see pushing back against such straitjacketing. This is perhaps best symbolized by the moment in 1992 when Nirvana, angry that MTV had threatened retaliation if the band refused to play one of its hits instead of a new song (the channel suggested it would fire band friend and MTV employee Amy Finnerty were they not to fall in line), began a performance of “Lithium” with Cobain strumming a few bars of “Rape Me” instead. Then-MTV President Judy McGrath reportedly let out a shriek and ran into the production booth, ready to cut to commercial. Yes, MTV would rather torpedo arguably the biggest act of the night and generate a ton of bad press for itself than allow a song that wasn’t pre-approved from going out over the airwaves. Control over all else.
But the channel has never seemed to understand that letting the seams show was one of the most endearing (maybe the only endearing) things about MTV, generating a sense of relatability that was more valuable with a deeply profitable youth demographic than all the polished “Check it out, young people!” ads they could produce. And the very first Video Music Awards, hosted by Bette Midler and Dan Ackroyd (which was as weird as it sounds), saw the final presentation of the night hijacked by Eddie Murphy, who impulsively decided to bring out the guy responsible for blowing “festive” amounts of confetti into the crowd and promising him an ass-whooping. It was a glimpse behind the scenes, and a moment that showed an awards show that could deviate from the playbook in honest and hilarious ways.
Cut to one year later, with Murphy even more famous than he already was, and MTV asked him to host the entire endeavor. The comedian said yes, and brought his freewheeling, improvisational attitude with him. This is maybe best demonstrated in a lengthy and random bit where Murphy decides to nab presenter Morris Day and Best Concept Video award winner Glenn Frey—both of whom were obviously unprepared for Murphy’s impetuous grab—and ropes them into an impromptu live trip downstairs to the press lounge. What follows is extended periods of silence and/or just-out-of-mic-range comments from the two guests, as they wend their way through the audience, downstairs, and eventually reaching their destination, before Murphy detours into the women’s lounge area outside the bathroom, surprising at least a couple women heading back upstairs. Watching the cameras scramble to keep up with the host as he follows his muse is almost as good as the strange slice-of-celebrity-life study contained in the unrehearsed segment.
These scenes of unexpected and awkward moments are what gave the awards show its reputation as the anything-goes hot ticket of live televised ceremonies, a cutting edge element of unpredictability hotwired into one of the most bland and stolid of TV traditions. Naturally, the channel took the exact wrong lesson from this: MTV started thinking that over-the-top was what got people talking, as opposed to the unexpected. One is obviously preplanned and can be seen coming a mile away, and the other is that dangerous sense of frisson generated by seeing something you know hasn’t been set up ahead of time, a feeling of danger that stems from the possibility for anything to happen.
This is likely one of the main reasons you don’t see stand-up sets like the one Sam Kinison performed in 1988 any more. MTV begrudgingly allowed the controversial comedian to take the stage after Guns N’ Roses insisted on having Kinison introduce them if they were to perform, and unexpectedly—or rather, wholly to be expected, if you knew anything about Kinison—the comic seized control of the show and preceded to perform nearly five minutes of stand-up, including lambasting the G-rated nature of the live TV event, scorning the restrictions MTV tried to impose upon him, and (best of all) mocking some of the evening’s biggest names, including MTV faves Huey Lewis And The News. (It also allowed Kinison to very publicly deliver the best Lewis burn ever conceived: “‘It’s Hip To Be Square’? Must be the same town where it’s hip to be called ‘Huey.’”)
From then on, MTV started progressively exercising more and more control over every facet of the awards show. It still wanted to be the topic of conversation the next day, of course, but was operating under the mistaken impression it could generate such moments from a team of producers and an office whiteboard. That’s not to suggest that stunts can’t be attention-getting hits—far from it, in fact. Elements of cultural zeitgeist were certainly captured by Madonna’s tongue-kissing Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears back to back in 2003, or Lady Gaga wearing a dress made of meat in 2010, or (shudder) Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley staging a painfully clumsy kiss to try and prove their love to the world. MTV would love nothing more than for its own pre-approved stunts to be the water-cooler discussion throughout America—and it gets really pissed off when, as I recall from 1994, the Beastie Boys use their pre-show interview time to reveal that MTV stuck them in a “punk rock ghetto” with Green Day backstage to lower the odds of any mischief-making from either band. (I have searched the internet for this clip to no avail, so here’s Green Day’s performance of “Armatage Shanks” from that year.)
But there’s a reason such stage-managed moments are rare when it comes to memorable VMA situations. Instead, scroll through any collection of wild VMA moments, and it’s inevitably largely made up of unscripted, unplanned scenes of spontaneity that MTV could never, and will never, control. All the effort the network put into arranging for Katy Perry to sing “Roar” from a boxing ring under the Brooklyn Bridge, and it can’t generate one-tenth the attention garnered by Courtney Love stumbling her way into an interview with Madonna. The amount of planning and money it must have taken to coordinate a single extended tracking shot of Nick Jonas wending his way through multiple choreographed sets en route to the VMAs stage in 2016, and it couldn’t muster an iota of the interest created in 2002 simply by having Triumph The Insult Comic Dog unintentionally give Eminem the opportunity to be an asshole.
Hell, even back in ’92 when MTV was still getting a handle on how to efficiently minimize the potential for unapproved interruptions, more people were talking about Krist Novoselic accidentally smacking himself in the face with his bass than nearly any other live performance from that decade’s worth of VMAs. (Hell, more people probably talked about the Red Hot Chili Peppers miming fellatio during their Breakthrough Video acceptance speech that same year than any performance.) Honestly, watch Beastie Boy Adam Yauch bum-rush the stage after R.E.M.’s video win in ’94 and declaim the proceedings while in character as “Nathaniel Hornblower,” and just try to imagine anyone at MTV actually managing to come up with something more worth talking about than that. It’s nigh-impossible:
These moments become fewer and further apart as the years go by. But thene plus ultra of VMA moments not only demonstrates the undeniable value of the very thing MTV wants to quash, but that doing its best to limit such moments means there’s been almost nothing worth discussing from the ceremony in the decade since. The 2009 Video Music Awards featured Taylor Swift performing in the New York City subway system—but you almost certainly don’t remember that, or any of MTV’s other exhaustively plotted sequences, because that was the year Kanye West decided to interrupt Swift’s acceptance speech with an impromptu testament to Beyoncé. Nothing as noteworthy has happened in the ensuing 10 years. A more interesting channel might take note of that fact.
It’s bizarre that the difference between stunt and subversion never seems to be acknowledged. There’s a plethora of “Greatest VMA moments” lists on the internet, and not one distinguishes between the two. “32 Most Outrageous MTV VMAs Moments of All Time” thus lists Miley Cyrus twerking alongside Rage Against The Machine bassist Tim Commerford climbing a pylon in disgust at the predetermined, manufactured nature of the “awards,” as though the two were one and the same. (And as though MTV didn’t do everything in its power during the actual broadcast to pretend the disruption wasn’t happening: Even in the channel’s subsequent news recaps of the event, it tellingly omits the impetus for Commerford’s actions—namely, that he saw winners Limp Bizkit approaching the stage, cameras in tow, before the band’s name had even been announced, triggering his anger at the complete farce viewers are led to believe is genuinely uncertain beforehand.) By sacrificing the latter on the alter on the former, MTV has unsurprisingly chosen obsolescence over opportunity, and stamped out the very fires that once drew curious viewers to its spectacle.
People used to know the tightly harnessed reins of live TV production might be upended by the Video Music Awards, and they would get a glimpse of the absurdity behind the splash. It wasn’t just part of the appeal; it was most of the draw. The smartest thing MTV could do would be to recapture a bit of that old freestyling Eddie Murphy spirit by opening up the possibility for disruption. The old ad slogan “I want my MTV” always meant something a little more than the channel realized: What people were really saying was, I want my MTV, despite the channel’s best efforts to keep it from them.
Feeling bummed about the whole Sony/Marvel Spider-Man rift? The tug of war over the beloved character has led to statements from Sony and Marvel president Kevin Feige, as well as reassuring comments from Tom Holland. It might not be enough to assuage fan concerns about the future of Peter Parker on the big or small screen, but there are other avenues to see him.
One of them is through the new Marvel animated Spidey show
on Disney. An announcement was made at this year’s D23
Expo during the Marvel Animation & Family Entertainment panel on Friday.
Marvel Spider-Man display, Hong Kong | Daniel Fung/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
The show isn’t about Spider-Man as you know him
Set to air on Disney Junior, the series is titled Marvel’s
Spidey and His Amazing Friends and is geared toward preschool audiences. It
won’t hit Disney Junior until 2021, but it’s at least one new Spider-Man
project on the docket after the Sony disagreement. According to Marvel,
here’s what the new series will be about:
“Our favorite neighborhood web-slinger is used to working solo, but now Peter Parker must discover what it takes to become a truly amazing super hero: being a spider friend who works well with others. Together with his friends Miles Morales and Gwen AKA Ghost-Spider, they will team up with heroes such as Hulk, Black Panther and Ms. Marvel, to defeat evil foes and learn that teamwork is the best way to save the day.”
It will be first full-length Disney Junior series ever for Marvel
The team behind the program is excited about its creation
and launch, with Marvel Animation’s SVP Cort Lane stating,
“Everyone at Marvel is thrilled to launch our first preschool series on Disney Junior, the gold standard platform for the audience. We believe parents and kids will be excited about these stories filled with themes of friendship, cooperation, solving problems and using your abilities to help others.”
Since you’re really never too old for cartoons, there’s no
reason for Spidey fans to skip checking out the show, whether preschoolers are
around to watch it with or not. The family-friendly series could be the perfect
introduction for Marvel fans-to-be.
Behind the Spider-Man split with Sony and Marvel
If you’re wondering how this new series is possible based on the “divorce” and custody rights over Spider-Man, it’s because Sony has ownership over the character’s film rights. In the past, Sony worked out arrangements so that the hero could appear in the Avengers films and the MCU Spider-Man movies led by Tom Holland.
Now, negotiations are said to be stalled but ongoing over which
company—Disney or Sony—will get to make more Spidey films moving forward. Fans
and critics of the split believe it all boils down to money, but it remains to
be seen if Disney (Marvel’s owner) will budge.
The timing of the announcement for Marvel’s Spidey and His Amazing Friends seemed a little awkward to some, but as ScreenRant notes, it can give fans something to look forward to while the other Spider-Man disconnect is being ironed out. And with that, Tom Holland wants fans to know that “he loves you 3000!” Don’t give up hope just yet.
Swift, in an interview with The Guardian, said: “You’re supposed to behave yourself in court and say ‘rear end.' The other lawyer was saying, ‘When did he touch your backside?’ And I was like, ‘A—! Call it what it is!’”
Fans felt a great disturbance in the Marvel Cinematic Universe this week when media outlets reported that Sony and Disney had reached an impasse on their arrangement with Spider-Man, and going forward, Spider-Man would no longer be a part of the MCU.
Fans cried out in terror, bitterly complaining that only Disney has done right by Spider-Man, with the hashtag #boycottSony going around on social media. However, that doesn’t tell the whole story. This may not be a done deal yet.
Tom Holland | Han Myung-Gu/WireImage
How did Sony and Disney get together?
Disney owns Marvel Studios, and some people think that means Disney owns all the characters, but this isn’t the case.
Sony owns the rights to Spider-Man and his associated characters such as Venom and the Green Goblin. Sony made the mostly well-regarded Spider-Man movies of the 2000s directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire.
Disney: We have almost all of the money! Sony: Look, we have some money too! Disney: Give us your money. Sony: But, we like money. Disney: We don't care. Give it here. Sony: https://t.co/YBT2o4ZvSU
After that, Sony started to struggle with the Spider-Man movies, with Spider-Man 3 being a financial success but widely regarded as an artistic disappointment. Then came the reboot movies with Andrew Garfield directed by Marc Webb, and those suffered more or less the same fate.
By this time, the MCU had hit the ground running, so to bolster their most valuable property, Sony would let Disney put Spider-Man in their Avengers-related movies, starting with Captain America: Civil War.
Sony in turn, would still have control over the live action Spider-Man movies, although Marvel President Kevin Feige would be the guiding hand on Homecoming and Far From Home, both of which were huge hits and were well-liked.
Why did the deal fall apart?
Short take – Disney got greedy and Sony realized they'd rather have 100% of their biggest franchise, even Feige-free SPIDER-MAN 3 and SPIDER-MAN 4 earns less worldwide versus co-financing (50/50 as requested by the Mouse) with a studio that already has most of the cookies.
According to Variety and other Hollywood trade papers, the Sony/Disney deal would expire after Far From Home, and it was time to renegotiate. With Homecoming and Far From Home, Disney got 5 percent of the box office gross, plus the merchandising revenue, and Sony got the rest.
Disney wanted to up their stake to 50 percent, which would effectively give control to them. Sony said no way. Cue the uproar.
Generally speaking, fans said, “Ack! Only Disney and Kevin Feige are capable of making successful Spider-Man movies! They need to be involved or the character is ruined again!”
That doesn’t take into account Sony made Venom and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse without any input from Disney. Both of those were hits, with Spider-Verse winning an Oscar for Best Animated Feature.
Sony isn’t about to give all that up. Kevin Feige or no Kevin Feige, no reasonable studio would want to give up so much control of their most valuable property.
There’s still hope for Spidey in the MCU
As Forbes points out, the story isn’t necessarily over, writing that Sony and Disney “know that public opinion matters too. Neither studio wants to be known as the ones who ruined Spidey after fans finally got the in-universe version they’ve wanted for decades.”
This impasse could well be a negotiating tactic to get Disney to come back to the table with a more acceptable offer for Sony.
A Tumblr user named Waluigi notes, “Also, they’re probably still negotiating, so Sony might end up taking a deal, especially since idiots everywhere are berating (Sony) for not letting Disney be greedy (which is what Disney wants).”
If worse comes to worse and the partnership does end here, it’s not the end of the world. Disney has more than proven it can make good movies without Spider-Man, and Sony seems to be on its own good track with Venom and Spider-Verse.
That said, Forbes notes, “Both sides are better together. Spider-Man is an integral part of Marvel’s story universe and brand identity. He can survive as a standalone property given the right creative team, but his five-film run in the MCU showed that he also benefits from – and complements – a bigger pantheon.”
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19101059/Screen_Shot_2019_08_23_at_8.00.09_PM.png)
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19101054/Screen_Shot_2019_08_23_at_7.55.35_PM.png)
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19101063/Screen_Shot_2019_08_23_at_8.03.51_PM.png)
