MARVEL SUES SONY...AGAIN

**MattBrady** · 01-30-2004, 02:15 PM

While its suit against Sony over Spider-Man is being resolved by a judge privately, Marvel has once again sued Sony, claiming that the studio deprived it of $6 million in royalties from the Men in Black franchise

The suit was filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court and claims that as Sony’s accounting goes, the two Men in Black films (which had a combined worldwide gross of $768 million) actually lost money. Marvel alleges that Sony’s accounting of the two films contains irregularities which include unexplained and excessive charges for advertising and overhead, this according to Variety.

Marvel acquired Men in Black when it purchased Malibu Comics outright in 1995. Previously, Malibu had signed a deal with Columbia (owned by Sony) under which it would get 35% of all merchandising income from the film, and 50% of income from merchandising of interactive rights, minus fees.

The suit seeks at least $6 million in damages.

Marvel’s other suit against a subsidiary of Sony, Sony Electronics, is ongoing, and seeks over $10 million in damages.

Tom Daylight · 01-30-2004, 02:23 PM

Is this "weird lawsuit day" or something?

Anders Wolleck · 01-30-2004, 02:29 PM

Maybe its time to send in some outside accountants.

I can see Sony losing $$ on Men In black 2. but not the 1st one

classicist · 01-30-2004, 02:53 PM

Have to love Hollywood accounting. After the bath everyone took on "Lord of the Rings," "Men in Black" and "Spider-Man," I hope that congress will be willing to support our floundering film industry.

pah25 · 01-30-2004, 02:55 PM

Come on Marvel - sue the b******s!! Sony are the s*** of the earth & I hope Fox get to make Spiderman 3. Uni & Fox should be the only ones doing Marvel Films.

Hdefined · 01-30-2004, 03:10 PM

If MIB is such an important property to Marvel that it's worth getting into a $6 million lawsuit over, why aren't they producing an ongoing MIB comic series?

Ian · 01-30-2004, 03:21 PM

Well, you know the old saw...

If you can't get them to buy you, sue the living shit out of them.

OM · 01-30-2004, 03:59 PM

...Jesus H. Christ! Hdefined finally posted something that wasn't asinine, much less drivel:

Quote:

Originally posted by Hdefined
If MIB is such an important property to Marvel that it's worth getting into a $6 million lawsuit over, why aren't they producing an ongoing MIB comic series?

...Same thing could be said for the entire 'Buverse line. They still own the characters, but don't do jack shit with them because all they wanted in the long run were the advanced printing press facilities they were using.

Matty, this might be a time for you to dig up Lowell Cunningham for an interview...

Hdefined · 01-30-2004, 04:05 PM

Times like this make one wish comics themselves were the real money in the industry and not the film rights shiznit . . .

Augie De Blieck Jr. · 01-30-2004, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by classicist
Have to love Hollywood accounting. After the bath everyone took on "Lord of the Rings," "Men in Black" and "Spider-Man," I hope that congress will be willing to support our floundering film industry.

Given the recent request for more NEA funding, this wouldn't surprise me.

And if you want silly lawsuits, you need to go to the tech world for SCO's lawsuits against everyone who uses Linux. Check out Groklaw.net for all the fun.

-Augie

IanZL · 01-30-2004, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hdefined
If MIB is such an important property to Marvel that it's worth getting into a $6 million lawsuit over, why aren't they producing an ongoing MIB comic series?

Even want to take a stab at how unsuccesful an MiB book would be? The properties are the money maker here.

V · 01-30-2004, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Maybe its time to send in some outside accountants.

I can see Sony losing $$ on Men In black 2. but not the 1st one

Please tell me how they can lose money on all merchandise producted around these movies. Count the worldwide income of Sony from the theaters and, even more profitable, the dvd's, and they're able to lose money.

These days, two thirds of the money collected on an American movie are made on non-US theaters and dvd's.

Make Marvel My Most Machiavelic Suitor

Michael Tierney · 01-30-2004, 05:29 PM

At least we know that the Enron Accountants are still finding work.

Cliffy · 01-30-2004, 05:46 PM

This is very, very weird. Inane studio accounting has been the norm for a long time and it's typically survived legal challenges. Marvel sued Sony over royalties on Spider-Man, and everybody figured Sony would win in a walk, regardless of the justice of their position. Now, Marvel is doing it again in a case with considerably less at stake. Why would they do that, unless they thought they had a very good chance? And why would they think they had a chance unless the Spidey suit was going better than expected? The very existence of this suit suggests that studio accounting (at least some of it) is vulnerable to attack.

--Cliffy

Somebody · 01-30-2004, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by OM
...Same thing could be said for the entire 'Buverse line. They still own the characters, but don't do jack shit with them because all they wanted in the long run were the advanced printing press facilities they were using.

Actually, not only are they not using them, they're making sure creators DON'T use them - Jim Starlin posted the original, inked & coloured, last page of Thanos 3 on his website as one of his "Today's Panel"s (making sure to put a "no, I didn't quit over this" on it), which showed that the skeleton was clearly Rune (the published version had it redrawn to be a generic skeleton)

WebHobbit · 01-30-2004, 06:32 PM

Hrmmph....well ya learn somethin' new everyday. I never made the Marvel MIB connection. I forgot all about Marvel buying Malibu.

AlexLothos · 01-30-2004, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Somebody
Actually, not only are they not using them, they're making sure creators DON'T use them - Jim Starlin posted the original, inked & coloured, last page of Thanos 3 on his website as one of his "Today's Panel"s (making sure to put a "no, I didn't quit over this" on it), which showed that the skeleton was clearly Rune (the published version had it redrawn to be a generic skeleton)

Woah! I always wondered what was the deal with Marvel and the Ultraverse characters... if creators were staying away because they thought they sucked or something (personally I think a few still have potential... Mantra and Prime come to mind) or if Marvel was behind not using them at all.

Weird stuff... yeah, I wouldn't mind someone in the know explianing this one...

The Enemy · 01-30-2004, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Actually, not only are they not using them, they're making sure creators DON'T use them

This is just a guess but I bet Malibu had a more generous creator agreement than Marvel. If they use the characters, there's potentially bigger than normal royalties involved.

I had heard that the creator of MiB got a nice cut of the movie $ because of his deal with Malibu. Can anyone verify this?

beta-ray · 01-31-2004, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pah25
Come on Marvel - sue the b******s!! Sony are the s*** of the earth & I hope Fox get to make Spiderman 3. Uni & Fox should be the only ones doing Marvel Films.

Wow until now I FORGOT how sweet Marvel, Sony and Universal were!

mrhelm · 01-31-2004, 02:05 AM

Any use of ultraverse characters involve payments to the writers that created them. Why would Marvel want to pointless pay Barry Windsor-Smith just to have a skeleton cameo in an average selling book. Same reason they were disallowed for the Epic debacle from the get-go.

That being said, I'd love to see them bring some Ultraverse characters back, but I doubt it will ever happen.

blackandwhite · 01-31-2004, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
At least we know that the Enron Accountants are still finding work.

bwhahhaahahhaaa

hee hee hee...nice one mike

Pariah · 01-31-2004, 11:53 AM

Somedays I just wish SONY would buy Marvel so we could see a comicbook version of Ted Truner and Gerald Levine fight a bunch of little Japanese ninja dudes.

Oh, of course throwing in a Hugh Jackman version of Wolverine in to boost sales.

Hokeyboy · 02-01-2004, 10:49 PM

This is nothing new.

Paramount screwed the author of Forrest Gump out of his share of the pie, claiming the film "never made a profit."

It took in over $500 million, worldwide, for a movie that came out of nowhere to become a surprise smash.

Hollywood accounting... gotta love it. Say! Who likes cake?

grphxkindaguy · 02-02-2004, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IanZL
Even want to take a stab at how unsuccesful an MiB book would be? The properties are the money maker here.

Who can *I* sue to get back the two hours of my life that I WASTED seeing MIB 2?!?

OM · 02-02-2004, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by grphxkindaguy
Who can *I* sue to get back the two hours of my life that I WASTED seeing MIB 2?!?

...Considering the film wasn't 2 hours long to begin with, it's obvious you weren't satisfied with it :-)