Let me start by saying that I am a die-hard Spider-Man fan. When I was younger, Saturday morning runs of Spectacular Spider-Man was one of the biggest highlights of my week. Something about his being a bullied science nerd and growing to be a compassionate, friendly neighborhood hero deeply appealed to me.That love soon blossomed into a (no longer secret) comics obsession and Marvel movie obsession that carried me through my formative years. Spidey was my gateway into the world of superheroes, and he will always have a special place in my heart.

Which is why I claim Sony shouldn't have given up 25% of movie revenue and all the merchandising rights to the character.

Now, to address all the incensed fans who will likely be rendered further inchoate by this piece: take a step back and think. When you all complain about the Sony movies, are you complaining about the movie itself or the actors? Most people (myself included) agree that Tom Holland is the best version of Spidey to grace the big screen in the past two decades. So it probably stands that even if they took him out of Mickey Mouse's (and Stark's) shadow, he would still be able to deliver the awkward, sincere emotionally resonant performance we have all come to love.

Granted, there is a huge visual gap between Sam Raimi's trilogy and the CGI-masterpieces produced by Disney. But that is as much a factor of time as it is of the money and effort put into the endeavor. Remember, superheroes weren't believed to have the same international mass-market appeal back then that they do today. As a geek girl growing up in the 2000s who was relentlessly bullied for her encyclopedic knowledge of plot arcs, I can painfully attest to this. But now, it is a known fact in entertainment that comic book movies pull in big bucks. Therefore, studios are more likely to invest in the films, and they've only continued to get bigger and flashier.

Which brings us to the fact that Sony's CGI capabilities in previous years could not even come close to the technology Disney got their hands on when they acquired Lucasfilm.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a monopoly as "An instance of the exclusive possession or control of the trade in a commodity, product, or service; the condition of having no competitor in one's trade or business." Basically, when someone (or some company) has such a large share of the control over something that they basically have no competition.

Considering the acquisition-binge Disney has been on lately, this is essentially their reality. Disney owns major studios including Pixar, ESPN, ABC, Marvel, 21st Century Fox, the aforementioned Lucasfilm, and a controlling interest in Lifetime. The Disney-Fox merger in particular was concerning, as it meant that the first and third biggest American movie studios were going to be combined into one entity that would control almost half of domestic movie business.

Which brings us to the last hard truth. As much as I loathe it, I understand why Sony capitulated; Disney is becoming an uncontrollable entertainment behemoth. They control such a huge share of market share that even with only a 75% cut and no merchandising revenue, Sony still stands to make more from this deal than it would from a stand-alone Spider-Man film. For comparison, consider this. Venom made nearly $856 million globally, while Into The Spider-Verse earned only $375.5 million globally.

Meanwhile, Spider-Man: Homecoming made $880 million and Far From Home made a whopping $1.13 billion, making it Sony's highest-grossing film as of today. The Far From Home numbers are the clincher. Based on them, Sony stands to make nearly as much (if not more) from a Disney-backed Spider-Man 3 as they managed with Venom. Even with only 75% of box office profits to their name. Sure, the original Sam Raimi film tops them all, but the sequel movies in that trilogy and the Amazing Spider-Man duology saw a drop in earnings. The movies made in collaboration with Disney are the only ones where the sequel earned more than the original, and the third could be projected to earn even more.

BoxOfficeMojo ranking of superhero movie profits (9/28/2019)https://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=sup...

So, in the end, it all comes down to the money. Which Disney has heaps of, along with a huge marketing apparatus, greater SFX capability, brand recognition, and an overall much more family-friendly image than the previous Sony pictures. Being a behemoth monopoly also means they can recoup costs much better than Sony, making them able to sink more money into production, as well.

To quote an iconic line "With great power comes great responsibility". For all the money Disney is making off the property, it doesn't seem to give half a damn about that fundamental message.