r/marvelstudios • u/pje1128 Kilgrave • 22h ago
Article Wilson Fisk/Kingpin Cannot Appear in Movies, Only TV Series, Daredevil’s Vincent D’Onofrio Reveals
https://tvline.com/news/wilson-fisk-kingpin-no-movies-only-tv-vincent-donofrio-1235428964/I don't think this was public knowledge before, but I suppose it makes sense since Kingpin is as much a Spider-Man villain as he is Daredevil. I assume Sony owns his film rights, but Marvel is still able to use him on TV, so maybe they could get him in a Spider-Man movie at least? D'Onofrio doesn't even seem confident about that though, so who knows.
439
u/JaesopPop 22h ago
I assume Sony owns his film rights
He was in the Daredevil film, which was Fox. Those rights are now back with Disney.
191
u/sanddragon939 21h ago
Yeah that's what I'm not getting. Why would Disney not be able to have Kingpin in a film when Fox was able to back in the day?
92
u/eBICgamer2010 Rocket 21h ago
In fact, they could because Deadpool and Wolverine was technically eligible under the current rule. The rule doesn't care which version of Elektra, it just states that Elektra, or any Daredevil characters count.
But that doesn't mean they will for story reasons.
49
u/sanddragon939 20h ago
Elektra's not comparable to Kingpin though because she's 100% a Daredevil (and thus Disney/Marvel-owned) character unlke Kingpin.
My point though is if Fox could use Kingpin with 50% ownership of the character's screen rights, then why can't Disney with the same rights?
37
u/Wise-Fruit5000 18h ago
if Fox could use Kingpin with 50% ownership of the character's screen rights, then why can't Disney with the same rights?
I mean, it's entirely possible Vincent D'Onofrio is just over simplifying it, or doesn't totally understand how it works himself.
Based on the precedent set by Fox, I'm sure Marvel would be able to use Kingpin as a villain in a Daredevil movie if they ever chose to make one.
Perhaps what Vincent meant is that he can't show up in a Spiderman movie, or an Avengers movie, or a Captain Marvel movie, etc. without getting into complex legalities and technicalities that nobody wants to try and untangle
5
u/FastidiousBlueYoshi 11h ago
I mean, it's entirely possible Vincent D'Onofrio is just over simplifying it, or doesn't totally understand how it works himself.
I want to believe this, I really do, but producers and studios are really weird about the relationship between TV and Film.
1
u/TripIeskeet 13h ago
They may be able to, but I think they would only be able to do it if they made a Daredevil movie. Kind of like how they had to use the twins as related to the Avengers and not mention them as mutants at all.
1
u/FightTheDead118 Crossbones 6h ago
You also need to consider the comic book film industry back then was a lot less cut throat than it is now. It could simply have been a matter of, Fox wanted to use Kingpin, they asked to use him, Sony had no plans to use him at the time so they licensed him out temporarily. Nowadays Sony has a death grip on even the most insignificant Spider-Man characters because they’re convinced any D-list comic character (Madame Web, El Muerto, Disco Hustler?) can launch a billion dollar franchise and Marvel has to jump through a million hoops to use anyone they own
22
5
2
u/BunPuncherExtreme 11h ago
When Fox lost the movie rights, the rights for the specific character went back to Sony.
→ More replies (4)
670
u/eBICgamer2010 Rocket 22h ago edited 15h ago
Not like they can't, but it's awkward. There's a can of worms no one is ready to open here.
Marvel and Sony share the character. By law it means they each own a copy of the character in adaptation with legally distinct features.
Technically, Sony wouldn't have a problem casting Vincent as their own Kingpin. All they have to do is say that they look the same but their history is different and voila (back in the day of course).
In fact this is how Michael Clarke Duncan played the Fox Kingpin and later voiced Kingpin again for Sony without either companies stepping on each other's foot.
But Vincent's Kingpin as we know is a Disney-owned copy of Kingpin. Bringing him into an MCU Spider-Man film means acknowledging his history from the Netflix and Disney+ shows since Marvel Studios is a co-producer.
Sony can theoretically own Vincent's Kingpin appearance for the Spider-Man film he's in (they own the film regardless) and it doubles up as Sony's copy of Kingpin. But still, he's not originally their copy.
Will Sony want to do that or will they exercise their rights? Will appearing in a hypothetical MCU Spidey film suddenly makes Vincent D'onofrio and his Wilson Fisk a true shared property between Marvel and Sony (after having been exclusively with Marvel) going forward?
264
u/Owain660 22h ago
Is Charlie Cox shared? He appeared in No Way Home and both the Netflix and Disney show.
488
u/eBICgamer2010 Rocket 22h ago
No. He's fully owned by Disney.
Jessica Drew plus Fisk, Vanessa and related elements listed in section 7B of the 2011 deal are shared between Disney and Sony.
188
u/Owain660 21h ago
Damn you did research
215
u/eBICgamer2010 Rocket 21h ago
SCHEDULE 7B FOX KINGPIN CHARACTERS (the 2011 amendment is still available online).pdf)
Hero or Villain
- Arranger, The / Oswald P. Silkworth
- Brainwasher, The / Wilson Fisk
- Flint 4. Kingpin, The / Wilson Fisk, a.k.a. Harold Howard
Supporting Characters
- Fisk, Vanessa – Wilson “The Kingpin” Fisk’s wife
- Julius – Vanessa Fisk’s servant
Businesses and Other IP
- Fisk Towers / owned by Kingpin
- Gloom Room A-Go-Go – nightclub
- Fisk Enterprises
89
24
u/harbourwall 18h ago
That list of frozen characters in 7A is an interesting read. Mostly silly characters, but didn't Spider-Man appear in What If as a Zombie?
32
u/eBICgamer2010 Rocket 18h ago edited 17h ago
Marvel has seemingly granted Sony access to some frozen characters sometimes before the first Spider-Verse film, hence why they lifted restriction on Marvel Zombies and ITSV featured Spider-Ham.
Edit: Well technically Marvel had always had the right to use frozen characters since 2009 in the short form animation space.
11
u/harbourwall 16h ago
You can almost see Spider-Verse coming out of writers looking over these lists for ideas. Absolutely fascinating.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Oraukk 16h ago
Spider-Man was in the What If Zombie episode, but as a human. He was one of the characters still alive by the end
2
u/harbourwall 15h ago
'for contractual reasons'
2
u/Oraukk 14h ago
I'm sorry, I think I'm a little lost about the point you're making.
2
u/harbourwall 13h ago
That contract looks like it forbids the portrayal of Spider-Man as a zombie in both Sony and Marvel productions, not only because it would deviate from his core character traits, but also a Spider-Man zombie is explicitly forbidden in Schedule 7A. If Peter Parker remained human in that What If zombie episode, then it's possible that the reason was to comply with this contract.
The phrase 'for contractual reasons' is an often used hand-wave to not explain the reasons for something. I used it flippantly here because it actually fits. Of course I'm not going to read the whole document, so I'm not entirely sure if my interpretation is accurate. But it's just a bit of fun.
→ More replies (0)9
u/JeffCaven 14h ago
Wow, this is the first time I see someone discuss the movie/TV rights to Marvel characters and providing a well-researched source for what they're talking about instead of just saying hearsay.
3
u/eBICgamer2010 Rocket 14h ago edited 12h ago
The Sony deal is pretty infamous at this rate. You can grab one on WikiLeaks (both the 2000s and early 2010s revision of the amendment exist).
Do you know what else are available through leaks and/or legit means? A portion of the 1993 Fox-Marvel amendment through the Marvel Enterprise v. Twentieth Century Fox case, along with the MCA amendment (for Marvel themed ride at Universal Studios), the SEC filling for Paramount/Marvel distribution deal and the Disney buyout of Marvel; and pretty lately a good portion of the Insomniac regulation and royalties (SIE and Marvel Games deals for Spider-Man and X-Men).
→ More replies (1)2
11
19
u/MajorVersion 19h ago
But that was the case in 2011, when there were those leaked documents. It specifically stated that Kingpin was a shared character, but "Marvel’s use of Kingpin is restricted to use in connection with Daredevil and other characters with which he appeared prior to 9/15/11", and also that Sony could not use it "until Fox rights over Daredevil expire".
Marvel and Sony later made a new agreement about Spiderman. Do we know for sure that the section 7B did not change?
6
u/toxicbrew 17h ago
So Disney is willing to share their character, but Sony isn’t, hmm. Though I think the difference is that Daredevil isn’t a shared character.
Also the 2011 likely is the base of, but not a full copy of the 2019 and 2023(?) deals between Disney and Sony, though it’s the best we have as it’s the only one in public knowledge. As you know.
3
u/BobTheFettt 14h ago
Sony notoriously hate working with other companies. They're also the only holdout on true cross platform multiplayer gaming
→ More replies (1)47
u/axelofthekey 21h ago
Daredevil fully reverted to Marvel when 20th-Century Fox didn't do a project with him for a long enough period of time.
Kingpin was both a Spider-Man and Daredevil villain. Therefore, he was shared by Sony and Fox. When Daredevil reverted to Disney, he became co-owned by Disney and Sony. As long as Sony owns Spider-Man, they co-own Kingpin.
25
u/sanddragon939 21h ago
Okay, but then explain this to me...Fox had the rights to Daredevil and to Kingpin (the latter co-owned with Sony). So when Daredevil's rights reverted to Disney, then so did Fox's half of the Kingpin rights.
But Fox had Kingpin appear in a movie, so why can't Disney with the same rights?
17
u/eagc7 20h ago
Depends on what the current contract says, no doubt those deals had to be looked over again once Kingpin was free to use for Sony.
What we do know for certain is that before Fox lost the rights the contract did said that Marvel can only use Fisk in association with Daredevil and other Marvel characters he may had clashed
5
u/sanddragon939 20h ago
Okay let me get this straight. You're saying before Fox lost the rights to Daredevil? But before that Fox could anyway only use Kingpin with Daredevil because they didn't have the rights to many other characters (unless the idea was that they couldn't use Kingpin with FF or the X-men?)
And again, that has nothing to do with the format. Why could Fox do Kingpin in a movie while Disney can't?
I am curious now about this 2011 deal though, since it was long before the deal that led to Spider-Man becoming part of the MCU. Was 2011 when Fox lost the Daredevil rights? But again, I don't understand how Disney getting back the rights to Daredevil necessitated a separate deal with Sony over Daredevil characters which restricted their use? After all, why wouldn't Disney be able to use Daredevil characters the same way Fox used them?
3
u/MajorVersion 19h ago
Fox lost the Daredevil rights in Oct 2012. They had the idea for a new movie, had half a script, but the director left, they could not find a replacement in time, at the time there was a rumor that they were desperate to get an extension from Marvel, they even offered the Fantastic Four rights in exchange for that extension, but Marvel refused.
Is it possible that Marvel can put Kingpin in a movie, but only associated with Daredevil, as Fox did?
3
u/sanddragon939 18h ago
Is it possible that Marvel can put Kingpin in a movie, but only associated with Daredevil, as Fox did?
Maybe, but that's not what D'Onofrio is saying. He's saying no movies. Period*.
I also don't understand the logic behind Marvel only being able to use Kingpin in Daredevil-related stuff. Why would they accept any such constraints from Sony? What's Sony's interest in Kingpin only being restricted to Daredevil? In any case, Kingpin has appeared in Hawkeye, I believe, and Echo.
6
u/coleedgerly 14h ago
We do also have to take into account that Vincent could be either misinformed, or pulling an Andrew Garfield
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/ArcherCareful3989 14h ago
I would say probably Vincent might not have acknowledged the detail or might have used wrong wording in a such complicated circumstance
I guess kingpin can still theoretically appear in a “Daredevil” movie
3
u/Caleb902 Daredevil 16h ago
They can. But it would have to be in a daredevil movie. And DD isn't getting a movie.
27
u/Lost-Teacher-624 22h ago
Sony can’t cast anyone else as Kingpin in a live action MCU Spider-Man film because that would nullify the existence of Kingpin in the rest of the MCU and Marvel Studios/Disney would not be a part of the film. Sure, they could have whoever they want in a different film, but not an MCU film. Disney would NOT be okay with that
42
u/PersonalRaccoon1234 22h ago
Fisk in black suit = Kingpin for the Spider-Man movies.
Fisk in white suit = Kingpin in the Daredevil shows.
Subtle but non contradictory differences.
42
7
15
u/Vizard15 21h ago
Complicated. That's why Marvel Studios should get these Spider-Man properties back. So no more low quality films from Sony. 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
2
u/TripIeskeet 13h ago
Sony could allow him to be in a Spider-Man movie along with Daredevil the same way they let Wong and Dr. Strange be in No Way Home. It would just take Sony and Marvel agreeing on a story and agreeing on which MCU characters would be allowed in the movie.
2
u/LeSnazzyGamer Spider-Man 13h ago
I think you massively over complicated this with the “their own Kingpin/copy of kingpin”
It could absolutely be the same character just as Doctor Strange, Iron Man, and Nick Fury were all their same characters. It would just be that Sony has to ask permission to use Kingpin in the movie
→ More replies (5)1
u/ItsAProdigalReturn 15h ago
Technically speaking, Sony and Marvel could strike a deal to use MCU Kingpin in Tom's movie, but you're right it would open a can of worms. Sony would basically be working themselves into a corner because it would mean if they ever part ways with Marvel Studios, their established Kingpin would be tied to them, and they had to suddenly retcon their own Kingpin's characterisation.
2
u/TripIeskeet 13h ago
If they had any sense they would realize that if they part with Marvel Studios theyd have to reboot the character anyway. Trying to just take Hollands Spider-Man out of the MCU to do their own thing would be a disaster for them.
60
u/SphmrSlmp Iron Fist 22h ago
They should just change the names of the characters. I can't wait to see the Amazing Night Monkey vs the infamous PingKin.
18
94
u/Joshawott27 Doctor Strange 22h ago
Considering that Marvel Studios and Sony Pictures have already shared characters like Iron Man, Nick Fury, Doctor Strange, and Matt Murdock, I wonder why they couldn’t simply agree to share Kingpin for a film.
As they essentially both have rights to the character, could it be because a potential appearance would be hard to legally decipher whether an appearance is using Sony’s rights or Marvel Studios’? I imagine that could then have issues with precedent if Sony then wanted to use Kingpin in a later film?
Conversely, didn’t one version of the leaked agreement say that Marvel Studios could only use Kingpin for Daredevil projects? So, could they potentially make a Daredevil movie but have Spider-Man appear, like Civil War and the Avengers films (or did it specify TV?). I guess the big issue is as an attempt to specifically swerve Sony’s rights, they’d be less likely to loan Spider-Man.
A real pickle…
36
u/sanddragon939 21h ago
I don't understand how Kingpin can't appear in a Disney movie when he could appear in a Fox movie.
Also, to my knowledge, Kingpin has already appeared in non-Daredevil projects so that's not an issue. If Marvel co-owns the character he can appear in anything. Its not like Scarlet Witch was restricted only to Avengers projects.
33
u/WilhelmScreams 17h ago
Copium: He was trying to come up with a lie on the spot because he can't reveal that he is in Brand New Day. He wouldn't be the first person to lie about their upcoming MCU role.
2
u/Ikitenashi SHIELD 11h ago
Pass me some of that copium!
He wouldn't be the first person to lie about their upcoming MCU role.
He'd only be the 127th person to do so.
9
u/Divewinds 20h ago
I think it's more about it being a shared universe. The Kingpin in the Fox movies would be legally distinct than any Kingpin that Sony theoretically implemented in a Spider-Man film. Now that Spiderman films are part of the MCU and Kingpin exists in the MCU already,
If Kingpin exists in Spiderman: Brand New Day, is it under Marvel's half of the rights? Or is it under Sony's rights? If it's under Sony's then that means it's arguably legally distinct and allows Sony to have D'Onofrio in other non-MCU projects (like how Vulture was able to appear in Morbius despite being in a different universe because Sony owned the rights to Vulture and Keaton's portrayal).
The agreement which allows Spiderman to appear in the MCU is separate from the 2011 negotiations which reasserted the rights. Portrayals being legally distinct were why Quicksilver could appear in X-Men and the MCU, although that has since changed with Disney buying the relevant parts of Fox.
All of this is not to say that Kingpin can't appear in films, especially Spider-Man films, but that they would likely need to negotiate rights similarly to how they did for Spider-Man. Given the collapse of the SSU, that probably wouldn't be too difficult.
6
u/sanddragon939 20h ago
Okay, couple of things that need to be broken down here I guess.
First off, D'Onofrio said that Kingpin can't appear in any film. He wasn't just talking about appearing in Spider-Man films. He apparently can't even appear in a solo Kingpin film. I don't see why that's the case - why Marvel can't just assert their half of the rights to have Kingpin appear on-screen (the same way Fox did back in 2003)? I can understand things getting complicated when it comes to Kingpin in a Spider-Man film, but why should they be complicated when it comes to Kingpin in a solo film, or a Daredevil film, or hell, an Avengers film?
Marvel owns the rights to Kingpin along with Sony. They own the rights to Vincent D'Onofrio's portrayal of Kingpin, as depicted in Daredevil, Born Again, and other D+ shows. Why can't they put him on the silver screen when Fox, who once had the same rights they do, did?
If there was some subsequent deal which added restrictions to Disney's usage of the character...well, I just don't get why Disney would agree to such restrictions since Fox never had them.
2
u/Divewinds 18h ago
The contract between Sony and Marvel with regards to rights of all Spiderman related properties were renegotiated in 2011 so there may be slightly different arrangements compared to 2003. Fox were licensing the rights off Marvel, so that puts them in a different position to Disney/Marvel (potential for conflicts of interest etc.). They may have agreed to additional restrictions to get additional use for something else that seemed more relevant to their interests at the time - especially as it seemed unlikely at the time that Spiderman would appear in the MCU.
Additionally, it's quite possible that D'Onofrio doesn't fully know the situation or that the conversations he's been a part of are primarily with regards to Spiderman, as there aren't really any other films on the agenda currently that Kingpin would be particularly suited in (he has connections with Thunderbolts, but it doesn't appear the use of Contessa de Fontaine is a substitute for Fisk).
24
u/You2110 Wilson Fisk 20h ago
I think the simplest explanation for this is Marvel doesn't want Vincent's Kingpin in a Sony movie.
Right now his version of the character is completely under Disney, even if the character itself is shared by both studios. If this specific version of Kingpin were to appear in a Spidey movie, there would need to be discussions around what the ownership of this version would look like.
Marvel doesn't have to worry about Dr. Strange and Daredevil in a Spidey movie, because they fully own the rights and are just loaning out those characters.
Marvel didn't have to worry about Quicksilver, because while Fox and Sony both owned the rights, they were using different actors for different versions of the character.
Right now, Sony/Marvel can cast whoever, or even Vincent as Fisk in a Fisk movie(but sony can't claim this is the same version from Daredevil), but they won't without talking with the other studio, because they currently have a deal going on for Spider-Man which was nearly cancelled a movie ago, because these guys do not get along. Even if it's legally ok, they don't want to risk other things, like sony/disney backing out of spiderman.
And Disney won't want to use Kingpin in a movie made by Sony, because sony could use that opportunity to use this Fisk for SUMC or whatever in a Madame Kraven sequel or something like they did with Vulture. I know sony fully owns Vulture, but they can do what they want with Kingpin if marvel opens this can of worms.
Or I could be completely wrong on this.
7
u/walartjaegers 17h ago
Marvel didn't have to worry about Quicksilver, because while Fox and Sony both owned the rights, they were using different actors for different versions of the character.
Sony owned the rights to Quicksilver?
69
u/Ube_Ape Stan Lee 22h ago
So if Disney wanted to put Tom Holland in a Disney+ limited series dealing with Kingpin that ran for 6 episodes for example they could skirt this if they really wanted to?
87
u/Sensational_Sap 22h ago
Nope, Sony owns long form television, which is why they can do shows like Spider-Man Noir. Disney can only do short form animation. Spidey can’t be in any Disney+ shows, and it seems kingpin can’t be in any films. I wish you were right though, that sounds awesome
15
u/CamAquatic 21h ago
I think the key thing everyone is leaving out with all the “can’ts” is that it’s entirely possible Disney/Sony cut a deal to make it work. That’s why we have Spidey in the MCU to begin with.
7
u/Divewinds 20h ago
Literally they just need to negotiate a deal that states Sony are welcome to create their own Kingpin in the SSU that's legally distinct, and that they can use Disney/Marvel's version of Kingpin in co-productions between Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios
13
5
u/fast_flashdash 22h ago
Unless it's animated for some reason
2
u/Sensational_Sap 22h ago
I’m not super sure on that actually, can Disney do long form animation? I know they can’t do any long form animation released theatrically, but could they hypothetically do an animated special on D+? Or is all long form content, regardless of medium, covered by Sony?
8
u/Lost-Teacher-624 22h ago
Disney can do anything they want in animation, as long as the episode is 44 minutes or under. 45 minutes and Sony has the rights. I’m suspecting that that’s why Spidey has not been announced as being a part of the Marvel Zombies show; those episodes are slated to be upward of an hour each
6
u/eBICgamer2010 Rocket 21h ago
I’m suspecting that that’s why Spidey has not been announced as being a part of the Marvel Zombies show; those episodes are slated to be upward of an hour each
3
u/sanddragon939 21h ago
I understand the deal with Spider-Man but I don't understand it with Kingpin.
If Fox could put Kingpin in a film, why can't Disney?
Disney co-owns Kingpin, unlike the case with Spider-Man when Sony fully owns him and 'lends' him to Disney as part of their deal.
4
u/eagc7 20h ago
Fox got first dibs on Kingpin, Sony literally couldn't even use him unless Fox lost the rights.
I would figure it would depend on what the current contract says, given they surely would've had to have looked at it when Fox lost the rights. And we only have access to the contract signed a decade ago before Marvel even had Daredevil back
→ More replies (1)2
u/MikeLanglois 17h ago
The only reason they "cant" is because someone at the company says they cant. They are more than able to say yes to any project as a joint venture and allow it to happen, but they choose not to
10
u/HankSteakfist 21h ago
Why was Fisk allowed to appear in Daredevil from 2003 then?
8
u/eagc7 21h ago
Per the contract between Marvel and Sony that got leaked in 2011 (which was before Fox lost the rights to DD), it says that Fox has exclusive rights to the character in films, but Sony would be free to use the character in their movies should Fox lose the rights
1
u/sanddragon939 20h ago
That...actually doesn't make sense. Why would Marvel agree to lesser rights over Kingpin than what Fox had? Why would they agree to give Sony more (i.e. exclusive) rights to Kingpin for nothing in return? Especially since by 2011 the MCU was well underway and I guess Marvel had started looking at trying to get back as many of the rights as possible.
→ More replies (1)
54
u/hweird Fitz 22h ago
Once again greed lets us not have nice things
11
u/Dan_Of_Time Vision 19h ago
Once again greed lets us not have nice things
As annoying as it is, It's not because of greed.
End of the day it was Marvel who sold those rights away. Which at the time was the correct thing to do. It is completely fair for Sony to do whatever they want with them.
For all we know it's Disney being the problem. In their eyes why would they give another company a bigger piece of the profits just for another character to appear?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)5
u/Acti0nJunkie 21h ago edited 21h ago
Complete opposite.
Without licensing, it would be a free-for-all. MCU as we know it would be all over the place with company after company trying to capitalize on the brand.
IP greed is protecting MCU as we know and love. It’s just the licensing is… complicated…
→ More replies (3)
12
u/Iphone_G___ 22h ago
I feel like he’s just confused or the higher ups lied to him because I can’t think of any restrictions on Kingpin. Like his live action rights don’t belong to Sony because there was literally a fox daredevil movie with kingpin in it.
4
2
u/sanddragon939 21h ago
Yeah.
I mean, even if there are complications due to Kingpin being co-owned by Sony and Disney, I don't see why Kingpin can't appear in an MCU film if he appears in MCU TV shows.
1
u/iamunknowntoo 15h ago
Or maybe he is in the new spider Man movie but is lying about this to keep it secret (remember Andrew Garfield?)
→ More replies (1)1
u/whitepangolin 11h ago
I think he can’t be in Disney Avengers movies but he can probably be in Sony Spider-Man movies?
3
3
u/burghguy3 17h ago
The neat thing about contracts is they can be rewritten. All it takes is Sony realizing they can sell more movie tickets (and merchandise) to a Spider-Man movie if they allow a Marvel character they didn’t have to expense any money to build up.
There’s a calculus there that executives are doing. It’s not impossible, it’s just executives are making creative decisions.
1
u/John711711 3h ago
The calculus goes both ways if Disney would let them use their contract it's a win win but neither company likes to share their toys.
16
u/DullAmbition 22h ago
Matt was in No Way Home. This can be worked out.
13
u/sanddragon939 21h ago
Yeah, but Matt is fully owned by Disney and 'lent' to Sony, just like Tony Stark, Dr. Strange and Nick Fury were. So its a different situation from Kingpin who's partially owned by Sony.
7
u/relientkenny 18h ago
i hate Sony man. wish they would stop being greedy assholes and just let Marvel have their sharing rights. y’all WASTED money on terrible ass Spiderman movies that NOBODY wanted to see. Marvel ain’t do that, YALL did Sony
1
u/John711711 3h ago
Yea your right i mean everyone wanted a 3rd ant-man film and Eternals not the mention the marvels or Capt 4 because Disney is the opposite of a greedy company who makes movies that NOBODY wants to see.
5
u/Spy_Fox64 22h ago
If they REALLY wanted to make it happen they could but I'm guessing both sides want the path of least resistance.
10
u/SirWeebleWobble 22h ago
And Andrew Garfield is not the werewolf. I’m sure an agreement can be met between Marvel Studios and the rights holders, because everyone likes money.
2
2
u/Darkfigure145 17h ago
Ok so here's what we do, we have Spider-Man 4 and Daredevil Born Again season 2 release at the same time.
We have a scene where Spider-Man is on the line with kinpin but it is never said it's him and then the same day we release the born again episode of kingpin on the line with Spider-Man, again it's never stated who they are, then the scene only makes sense if you watch them side by side. Is that complicated enough?
2
u/crimsonangel68 14h ago
Honestly, the only truly good use of Spider-Man characters in the last 20 years has been inside the MCU as part of a joint film (Into the Spider verse is an exception). I could see Disney just buying the film rights to Spider-Man, and his associated characters, back from Sony. Let Sony keep making great Spider-Man video games, and leave the movies to Disney, where he can cross over better.
2
u/John711711 3h ago
Sony would never sell it makes to much profit venom did the animated films do as well as live action so no reason to sell something that keeps making you profit.
2
u/BossHawgKing 19h ago
Once again, I wish nothing but the worst for the idiots at Marvel who sold the rights to Sony.
3
u/InvalidNinja 17h ago
It was a different time. Marvel was on the verge of bankruptcy and they didn't have a movie studio, so selling the rights made them the money to stay afloat and didn't cost them anything since they weren't even in the movie business.
1
u/dudeimlame 13h ago
Marvel wouldn’t exist right now if they didn’t even sell the rights lol
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Jons0324 Baby Groot 22h ago
Really hope Vincent can appear in the MCU films as Wilson/Kingpin…fingers crossed
1
1
u/Jaketrix Captain Marvel 21h ago
I'm certain deals could be made, but I'm sure it would be a hassle to make it happen. It would be very weird to see Vincent's dark and violent Kingpin clash with Tom's pretty light hearted Spider-Man. Very weird, but I would welcome the tones of these characters sort of mixing together.
1
1
1
u/ChaplinWasRight Hank Pym 21h ago
You know what the perfect deal would be?
Sony uses Marvel's version of Kingpin in exchange for Marvel getting to use Norman Osborn indefinitely for a proper Dark Reign storyline.
1
u/DarkShadowZX 21h ago
You know, while I wouldn’t mind a Kingpin vs Spider-Man matchup in the MCU, I don’t think there’s anything special they can do between them anymore at this point with how both characters have been developed so far.
Peter is now completely on his own with no known connections to him at all. Kingpin doesn’t know who Peter is close with either, so there’s no dynamic where Kingpin can threaten Peter with or hold power against him.
At this point their interactions will just be “Kingpin does something bad, Peter sees this, Peter fights Kingpin” or “Kingpin goes after Spidey cause he’s a vigilante and they fight”and that’s the end of that.
All the interesting interactions have already been fleshed out with Kingpin and Daredevil. The MCU has already made both of them foils of each other and so intrinsically linked together that any Spidey-Kingpin interaction will either make Fisk come off as a one-time villain in Peter’s rogue gallery or as a one-time fight interaction like with Kate Bishop and Kingpin in the Hawkeye series.
There’s not really anything left to make a Spidey-Kingpin interaction feel interesting or meaningful anymore. So I can’t say I feel bad that it’s unlikely for us to see them together now. At this point, the only way I see Spidey ever interacting with Fisk is if he’s tagging along behind Daredevil as support and it’s mostly Daredevil and Kingpin dealing with each other.
1
u/Tetracropolis 17h ago
It's probably technically true under the current contract, but they could figure it out if they wanted to.
1
u/belungar 17h ago
I can't believe WB/DC is not Disney/Marvel's worst enemy, it's those fucking clowns in Sony
1
u/PepsiSheep 17h ago
Somewhere at Disney, they likely have a plan drafted and a monetary amount detailed, that it would cost to get Spider-man and Co back from Sony... but ultimately the cost for them, vs what they'd gain is slim. They already make money from the merch, can make their own cartoons and such.
They'd pay Sony billions and get very little in return, financially, but they will have a plan and maybe one day they'll act on it.
1
u/jimababwe 16h ago
So it’s not just Spider-Man movies but any movies? That’s a weird one. So no dd movies ? Is this part of the Sony deal somehow?
1
1
1
u/WheedMBoise 16h ago
Man, this is so lame. The only way this changes is if Sony goes bankrupt basically
1
u/NateThePhotographer 15h ago
I know Sony still has the rights to Spiderman and his rogues gallery, but I never thought of Kingpin as a Spiderman villain, he's more often shared between New York Street heroes than exclusively tied to one hero.
1
u/iamunknowntoo 15h ago
I think they're planning on using him in a future Spider Man movie but they want to keep it a secret, so they come up with this as a cover excuse
1
1
1
u/HappycatAF Daredevil 15h ago
We shouldn’t believe anything actors say. For one, unless they have a producer’s credit, they are as far away from production decisions as can be, in fact, the studio deliberately lies to actors all the time to keep them operating within their little box. The studio also lies to the actors’ agents who also lie to the actors. Vincent is the last person on earth who should know what is in the studio rights contracts because if he or his agent did know, they would use that as leverage in their negotiations.
1
u/OJONLYMAYBEDIDIT 14h ago
so do we actually want a "realistic" Kingpin being a Spider-Man villain?
the dude greatly benefits from being a comic book character in the comic book medium, so while it's still silly, he uses that whole "I'm 2% body fat and 98% muscle" shtick to somehow fight Spider-Man (who as we all meme about, Holds Back)
having Kingpin be "human but clearly superhuman" in comics/cartoons doesn't translate as well to live action
the first boss fight in the Sony Spider-Man game is absurd once you stop and think about it, even by comic standards.
so then you just got Kingpin the crimelord/businessman to fight Spider-Man
and that would require a major shift in his character. He's have to suddenly turn into Norman Osborne or something to suddenly have the tech to create threats to Spider-Man
1
u/TripIeskeet 13h ago
God I fucking hate the fact that Marvel still doesnt have the rights to all their characters.
1
1
u/trav-senpai 12h ago
This is probably a good thing. I’d rather a good character be in a few good shows than a mediocre film
1
1
u/Meyu_Sys 12h ago
Too many people are just taking this at face value, Vincent could be lying, unaware or just making it up.
1
1
1
u/CochranVanRamstein 9h ago
That’s a problem because D’Onofrio IS Wilson Fisk. No one can play this role besides him.
1
u/jacksonjjacks 8h ago
If featuring Fisk in a cinematic storyline is somehow relevant to telling a bigger story, I am very sure Sony and Disney will find a deal.
1
u/ImmaculateNoCapulet 8h ago
This might sound stupid, but what if they cast D’Onofrio as a nameless character but make it obvious it’s Kingpin?
(Somewhat similar to his name not being dropped for a while in Daredevil S1 although it was just written like that.)
1
1
u/Tgomez11199 7h ago
Doesn’t this just mean that he would have to appear in a Spider-man movie? The Spider-Man movies are already Sony and Marvel Studios joint productions so the rights shouldn’t be an issue.
1
u/pje1128 Kilgrave 5h ago
I think the issue there would be that D'Onofrio's version of Fisk is right now a Marvel Studios owned character. But if they put him in a Sony Spider-Man movie, suddenly Sony has joint use of this version of the character, and they could then freely use him in their universe like they did with Vulture in Morbius. Marvel Studios wouldn't want to give Sony that kind of control over their character.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/TelephoneCertain5344 Tony Stark 7h ago
Dammit. Wait so Sony can't put him in an MCU Spider-Man movie. Wouldn't they still have the rights?
1
u/anthonystrader18 6h ago
that sounds disappointing to hear we all want kingpin to fight spider-man. sony and Disney needs to something by having kingpin fight spider-man maybe in the 5th one.
1
u/WayveBreak-Prime Spider-Man 4h ago
Okay... Time to make an animated shot series of the Main MCU Spider-Man and bring in Wilson Fisk, Daredevil and tie in them.
1
u/Fair_Walk_8650 3h ago
So basically we're never getting Spider-Man & Daredevil teaming up against Kingpin because of rights issues. Got it, I'm just glad to have a straightforward answer on this one.
Like, better to be let down easy than get my hopes up.
1
u/CaptHayfever Hawkeye (Avengers) 3h ago
Look, we all love D'Onofrio's Kingpin, but there are other great Spidey villains that are still unused in live action.
2.3k
u/Hippo_in_limbo Black Panther 22h ago
This means they'll never meet.