But that Electro didn't have a movie likeness either. Nor did the ASM2 Spider-man, even in a masked way.
The specific actor likeness rights may have come down to the actor's contracts for the movies - but that's not a right to produce the toys based on those properties. Toy Biz and then Hasbro have always done movie based figures - for Fox movies as well as for Spider-Man movies. So, Hasbro might have to go out and pay Garfield and Foxx separately for likeness rights - but they don't have to pay Sony for the right to make figures.
I didn't catch the live stream with sound on, did they say if Doc Ock's claws are articulated, or static and swappable?
I'd understand a pair of static claws to allow for stability when posed suspended by the tentacles, but if it's just different options that's abit of a step backwards from the last Sonyverse Dock Ock.
I still think Electro is gonna be made from NWH, and if the Foxx likeness is an issue, the easy work around is make the head have that electricity effect on his face or more generic looking face like Quicksilver. But I have zero doubt he is coming
So, Hasbro might have to go out and pay Garfield and Foxx separately for likeness rights - but they don't have to pay Sony for the right to make figures.
Exactly. But it is on Sony for not locking up likeness rights into the actor's master contract. Which is where I think they aren't bothering. So, Hasbro has to do it - or not.
So, Hasbro might have to go out and pay Garfield and Foxx separately for likeness rights - but they don't have to pay Sony for the right to make figures.
Exactly. But it is on Sony for not locking up likeness rights into the actor's master contract. Which is where I think they aren't bothering. So, Hasbro has to do it - or not.
Gotcha... I think I just misunderstood what you were saying initially.
I wonder how things played out for Ned, MJ, and JJJ. JJJ wasn't packaged under the Raimi franchise. Is it because he's "technically" a new character? The hair cut? Ned has appeared in MCU proper (Infinity War) but MJ has been only Sony. Zendaya has enough star power to be difficult but apparently isn't. So maybe if the character is gonna stick around Hasbro will put in the extra work that Sony doesn't. Whereas these one off villians aren't worth the hassle? Unless they're legacy characters like Ock and Gobby. What about May who technically debuted in MCU proper and stuck around? Was this a choice by Hasbro not to make her?
I would just love to sit down and pick the teams brain on all this but for legal reasons I assume we can't.
I also wonder if any MCU proper actors managed to slip past the likeness rights. Michelle Phifer for example. I feel like we're past due for Hank and Janet. I've never seen a Catwoman figure with her likeness.
The next time someone gets a chance to interview the team maybe ask if any current MCU actors have refused likeness rights and if the team has any kind of workaround for that instance. I'd be curious.
I agree that an actor's likeness is solely their decision as well as their desire to negotiate. However, I do feel if you sign on for one of these rolls and the contract requires your likeness rights then you either take the roll as is or leave it someone who will.
Wow. Thanks for that, I stand corrected on Phifer then. Hasbro where you at? Lol.
Even if Pfeifer didn't want to give the likeness, they could easily do a Ant-Man & The Wasp Janet in her Quantum Realm outfit with the mask
Right, or her Wasp uniform from the flashbacks. As much need for a likeness as Vulture and Mysterio.
Yeah I'm pretty sure it's a Sony issue.
I'm pretty sure Disney has the Marvel distribution rights for comic stuff and things like that. So Sony is probably charging out the ass for movie merch.
I'm pretty sure this is wrong. When Marvel sold Spider-Man to Sony they very specifically retained the toy rights to any Sony produced product - and this was in-part because Marvel owned Toy Biz at that time. That's why the Garfield movie Electro appeared in a wave of Marvel Legends. So, I don't believe Hasbro has to pay Sony separately for the rights to Spider-Man movie characters, those are included with the overall Marvel license (I think).
The actors own their likeness regardless of any deal Sony or Marvel make between each other. Marvel makes the actors sign their likeness rights away for merchandise, but Sony doesn't have as much of a stake in Marvel merchandising so in general they don't care. Since Marvel started doing their movies from Spider-Man: Homecoming that's different, but before that who knows what they did with each film. Some they may have had the actors sign likeness rights away, others not. Only Sony and Marvel know those details.
But that Electro didn't have a movie likeness either. Nor did the ASM2 Spider-man, even in a masked way.
The specific actor likeness rights may have come down to the actor's contracts for the movies - but that's not a right to produce the toys based on those properties. Toy Biz and then Hasbro have always done movie based figures - for Fox movies as well as for Spider-Man movies. So, Hasbro might have to go out and pay Garfield and Foxx separately for likeness rights - but they don't have to pay Sony for the right to make figures.
100% correct.
I didn't catch the live stream with sound on, did they say if Doc Ock's claws are articulated, or static and swappable?
I'd understand a pair of static claws to allow for stability when posed suspended by the tentacles, but if it's just different options that's abit of a step backwards from the last Sonyverse Dock Ock.
One static set where the pincers are flat used for standing on, and one articulated set. Kinda looks like the static standing set is only two pincers which is odd--I would expect us to get four of those. So for now I'm puzzled. Should be more clear once we see just how stiff the tentacles are.
Even if Pfeifer didn't want to give the likeness, they could easily do a Ant-Man & The Wasp Janet in her Quantum Realm outfit with the mask
I'm sure she relinquished her likeness rights, but we've never even gotten an MCU Hank Pym figure, so I'm unsurprised we haven't gotten a Janet Van Dyne yet.
I didn't catch the live stream with sound on, did they say if Doc Ock's claws are articulated, or static and swappable?
I'd understand a pair of static claws to allow for stability when posed suspended by the tentacles, but if it's just different options that's abit of a step backwards from the last Sonyverse Dock Ock.
One static set where the pincers are flat used for standing on, and one articulated set. Kinda looks like the static standing set is only two pincers which is odd--I would expect us to get four of those. So for now I'm puzzled. Should be more clear once we see just how stiff the tentacles are.
I'm quite puzzled in respect of the images we've got. Ideally, my preference would be one articulated set, one flat static set that allows him to stand on all fours. These "in the middle" possibilities are so strange. Hasbro are capable of doing fully articulated claws, far tighter and stable than ToyBiz', but are potentially giving us weird transition alternatives?
Unless it's, one set 4 closed pincers, one set of flat to stand pincers, and one set of half closed gripping pincers, I'll be bummed. That's 12 alternate claw pieces. That's not in Hasbro's MO. So if they are indeed static in varying inclusion, I'll be quite annoyed. I give them props on how long the tentacles are and the figure as a whole, but how it is able to interact with a Spidey figure and it's options are key.
Latest Post: One A Day: Day #1211 - Marvex the Super-Robot, plus Kangaroo Our newest member: Jimmyduh Recent Posts Unread Posts
