The Official "Get Marvel's Rights Back!" Thread

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Originally Posted by kaijunexus

I think everyone's biggest fear is that we wouldn't be getting as many movies based on Marvel characters if Marvel Studios got the rights back to all their characters.

This is completely untrue.

No one wants to over-saturate the market right now. For the past several years, there's been 1 DC movie and about 3 Marvel movies produced annually. Generally, 1 or 2 of those Marvel movies is produced by a company other than Marvel Studios.

Does anyone honestly think MS is only producing 1 or 2 movies a year due to financial reasons anymore? They now have the backing of one the largest media corporations in the world. If they knew that Fox or Sony wouldn't be producing a Spider-Man or X-Men movie every year, MS would happily be pumping out 3 films a year.

I think that's what people who support these properties at other studios need to understand. Marvel getting these rights back does not mean they tuck them away for a decade, whereas Fox or Sony would have been giving you Daredevil and Fantastic Four movies for years. Marvel would fill in the void left by the other studios.

My reasoning for not wanting to see Spider-Man and X-Men leave Sony and Fox has nothing to do with fear of getting less movies. It's more to do with MS's growing pains over the last five years. The Avenger's may be the next phase in the evolution, but I'll need more evidence with future films. And I've liked all of Marvel Studio's films. Despite it's flaws, I've watched Thor numerous times and never get tired of it. I love the performances and heart of that film.

But Sony and Fox have valuable franchises in Spider-Man and X-Men. So in order to keep them valuable they will have to raise the bar on productions moving forward. Not a bad thing. Fox made mistakes which I think they have learned from. First Class was better then any Marvel Studio's film thus far and TASM looks great as well. Vic Armstrong made a comment about a $220 m dollar budget for TASM. And two of the other three Spidey films at Sony have been above the $220 million mark. Would Marvel Studio's invest this kind of coin in a solo character? I'm not sure. With Disney's envolvement moving forward perhaps they would, but we have to see it. Let's see what they invest in the Cap and Thor sequels.

[kaijunexus]

Originally Posted by SoNicRaDiATioN

My reasoning for not wanting to see Spider-Man and X-Men leave Sony and Fox has nothing to do with fear of getting less movies. It's more to do with MS's growing pains over the last five years. The Avenger's may be the next phase in the evolution, but I'll need more evidence with future films. And I've liked all of Marvel Studio's films. Despite it's flaws, I've watched Thor numerous times and never get tired of it. I love the performances and heart of that film.

But Sony and Fox have valuable franchises in Spider-Man and X-Men. So in order to keep them valuable they will have to raise the bar on productions moving forward. Not a bad thing. Fox made mistakes which I think they have learned from. First Class was better then any Marvel Studio's film thus far and TASM looks great as well. Vic Armstrong made a comment about a $220 m dollar budget for TASM. And two of the other three Spidey films at Sony have been above the $220 million mark. Would Marvel Studio's invest this kind of coin in a solo character? I'm not sure. With Disney's envolvement moving forward perhaps they would, but we have to see it. Let's see what they invest in the Cap and Thor sequels.

I was going to make a statement about budgets not necessarily reflecting the quality of a film, but I think you almost illustrated that point in your post.

Marvel's films have been significantly cheaper than Fox and Sony's, yet they arguably have a better quality over all.

Spider-Man 3 had a budget of $258 million.

X-Men: Last Stand's budget was $210 million.

Iron Man, however, had a budget of $140 million.

Two of these films were critically panned and generally loathed by fans, the other is revered as one of the best comic book movies of all time.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

I don't think budget = quality. What does is talent, vision and everyone being on the same page. As well as a little luck.

Those films you mentioned had bigger problems then budget size.

And I wouldn't argue that Marvel Studio's films may have better quality overall. Sony and Fox's best beats MS's best. The Avenger's may change the game though.

[kaijunexus]

Originally Posted by SoNicRaDiATioN

I don't think budget = quality. What does is talent, vision and everyone being on the same page. As well as a little luck.

Those films you mentioned had bigger problems then budget size.

And I wouldn't argue that Marvel Studio's films may have better quality overall. Sony an Fox's best beats MS's best.

I'm not so sure about that. Spider-Man 2 is Sony's highest ranking film on RottenTomatoes (not the best judge of movie quality, but it will suffice) at 93%. Fox's highest ranking film on RT is X2: X-Men United at 88%.

Iron Man sits at 95%. (btw, Avengers now sits at 96%)

Meanwhile, Sony's worst outing is Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance with an RT rating of 17%. Fox's worst is Fantastic Four with 27%.

Marvel's worst is Incredible Hulk with 66%. According to RT, they've never made a "rotten" film. With that kind of track record, how can you not trust them to do Spider-Man or X-Men justice?!

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Well I agree, I don't put much stock in RT. So many of the reviewers they let stand on that site write poor reviews. And SM2 was at 95% at one point and held strong. Then at 94% for a long time. Now 93%. As long as they keep letting reviews come in after the initial release, then these numbers will fluctuate. Same will happen with IM. SM2 has a better metacritic rating then IM (83- 79) and I put more stock in that site then RT.

I agree about Ghost Rider being terrible. But that probably wouldn't even be made at Disney/Marvel. I don't see how giving the worst of each respective studio is really relevant. Ghost Rider aside, I'd rather have a studio swing for the fences then fit everything into more of a company mold and play it safer in general. Fox's mistakes have been well documented, but again, I think they learned from past mistakes. First Class is a great start.

[kaijunexus]

Originally Posted by SoNicRaDiATioN

Well I agree, I don't put much stock in RT. So many of the reviewers they let stand on that site write poor reviews. And SM2 was at 95% at one point and held strong. Then at 94% for a long time. Now 93%. As long as they keep letting reviews come in after the initial release, then these numbers will fluctuate. Same will happen with IM. SM2 has a better metacritic rating then IM (83- 79) and I put more stock in that site then RT.

I agree about Ghost Rider being terrible. But that probably wouldn't even be made at Disney/Marvel. I don't see how giving the worst of each respective studio is really relevant. Ghost Rider aside, I'd rather have a studio swing for the fences then fit everything into more of a company mold and play it safer in general. Fox's mistakes have been well documented, but again, I think they learned and First Class is a great start.

I don't mean to run this conversation to eternity, but I just can't help but write a rebuttal.

RottenTomatoes is most definitely not the best judge of film, but I feel that it does a fair job of determining general movie quality.

Besides that, I just have two things...

First, I think pointing out the worst that's come out of those studios is highly relevant in illustrating what they're capable on the other end of the spectrum. You stated that you trust those studios with these properties based on the BEST movies they've produced. Yet, you can't make that judgement without also acknowledging their WORST. Their best is comparable to Marvel's best...but their worst is far worse.

Secondly, how can you not have faith in a studio that has produced 6 films ranging from good to amazing, and yet be so forgiving of one that has bungled 5 movies out of 8 just because they got it right on the most recent one??

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Originally Posted by kaijunexus

I don't mean to run this conversation to eternity, but I just can't help but write a rebuttal.

RottenTomatoes is most definitely not the best judge of film, but I feel that it does a fair job of determining general movie quality.

Besides that, I just have two things...

First, I think pointing out the worst that's come out of those studios is highly relevant in illustrating what they're capable on the other end of the spectrum. You stated that you trust those studios with these properties based on the BEST movies they've produced. Yet, you can't make that judgement without also acknowledging their WORST. Their best is comparable to Marvel's best...but their worst is far worse.

Secondly, how can you not have faith in a studio that has produced 6 films ranging from good to amazing, and yet be so forgiving of one that has bungled 5 movies out of 8 just because they got it right on the most recent one??

I can promise you this. Marvel Studio's will make a BAD film in the future. Law of averages.

And I have faith in MS. I've already said I liked past films (except IM2). I just don't think they have done anything truly great. Nothing on the level of X2 or SM2. Iron man is borderline great to me. I think the Avengers may be the game changer. But let's wait and see what happens next. What MS's are willing to spend moving forward is a definite unknown for me. Not the case with Sony in particular.

Sony is two for three on Spidey and looks to be three for four if my expectations for TASM become realized. SM3 was a disappointment, but not because of a lack of ambition, but a lack of some of the elements I mentioned in an earlier post. Too many cooks in the kitchen.

X1 and X2 are great films, particularily X2. X3 and Wolverine were disasters but they recovered nicely with First Class. And with Singer back on board as a producer/consultant moving forward, I am more optimistic about that then I would be about Feige in the producer's chair.

[kaijunexus]

Originally Posted by SoNicRaDiATioN

I can promise you this. Marvel Studio's will make a BAD film in the future. Law of averages.

And I have faith in MS. I've already said I liked past films (except IM2). I just don't think they have done anything truly great. Nothing on the level of X2 or SM2. Iron man is borderline great to me. I think the Avengers may be the game changer. But let's wait and see to what happens next. What MS's are willing to spend moving forward is a definite unknown for me. Not the case with Sony in particular.

Sony is two for three on Spidey and looks to be three for four if my expectations for TASM become realized. SM3 was a disappointment, but not because of a lack of ambition, but a lack of some of the elements I mentioned in an earlier post. Too many cooks in the kitchen.

X1 and X2 are great films, particularily X2. X3 and Wolverine were disasters but they recovered nicely with First Class. And with Singer back on board as a producer/consultant moving forward, I am more optimistic about that then I would be about Feige in the producer's chair.

I believe we've both made equally valid points. I have enjoyed our discussion and declare us both winners!

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Been a pleasure.

[metaphysician]

I think it'd be for the best if any rights reversion happened gradually. If everything suddenly landed back in Marvel's hands, that would produce a temptation to do something stupid. If they got only one license at a time, however, it'd both give more time for MS to establish a track record, and more time to reincorporate each one.

[Whiskey Tango]

Originally Posted by kaijunexus

I believe we've both made equally valid points. I have enjoyed our discussion and declare us both winners!

Originally Posted by SoNicRaDiATioN

Been a pleasure.

The hell? This is the internet people, the only possible conclusion is CAGE FIGHT TO THE DEATH!!!

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Yes, the internet brings out the worst in people at times. If things begin to head in an ugly direction, I usually hit the ejector button on my DB5.

Once May 4th hits I'm in the wind till the fall. I can just imagine the back and forth between different fan factions over the course of the summer. Not for me. I'll just wait for the dust to settle lol.

[spideyboy_1111]

i have a horrible feeling FOX is going to wedge in Wanda and Quicksilver to XMFC2 (so marvel can't use them) and I really wouldn't be shocked if the FF reboot involves the skrulls....

[Project862006]

^yeah god forbid we get magneto's kids in an x men film lol

you know a film they are fitted for more than avengers

[spideyboy_1111]

Pietro yes, Wanda hell no. she's had very little XMEN contact compared to avengers. Not to mention they went over a decade without any family connection to magneto

[spideyboy_1111]

Stop trying to compare XMEN history and popularity with "XMEN evolution"

[roach]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

Pietro yes, Wanda hell no. she's had very little XMEN contact compared to avengers. Not to mention they went over a decade without any family connection to magneto

exactly its not like Hawkeye and Black Widow were part of the first team of Avengers or Peter being bitten by a genetically enhanced spider or Thor not being Donald Blake or Tony Starks father helped in creating Captain America or ..........the movies aren't the comics and the comics aren't the movies


but say if they wanted to be like the comics they could have Xavier's X-men go up against Magneto's Brotherhood of Mutants...who were members of the original team again??????

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by roach

exactly its not like Hawkeye and Black Widow were part of the first team of Avengers or Peter being bitten by a genetically enhanced spider or Thor not being Donald Blake or Tony Starks father helped in creating Captain America or ..........the movies aren't the comics and the comics aren't the movies


but say if they wanted to be like the comics they could have Xavier's X-men go up against Magneto's Brotherhood of Mutants...who were members of the original team again??????

It would all be redundant. If Wanda and Puerto we're in an xfilm the storyline should focus quite alot on them. not to mention Wanda is considered a hero, not a villain, she was only on the brotherhood for a very short time

[roach]

how would having Wanda and Pietro in an X-film be redundant????

[Project862006]

^because it is'nt marvel studios i guess lol

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by roach

how would having Wanda and Pietro in an X-film be redundant????

Well they should be used in X4 instead of XMFC2 so Erik is old enough to have grown @#$ kids to recruit in his evil brotherhood.. And i believe X4 isn't in the current thought process. I could be wrong

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by roach

how would having Wanda and Pietro in an X-film be redundant????

The brotherhood vs XMEN again would be the redundant part. Not Pietro and Wanda. X1,x3,fc was all about that. Three films is a bit redundant. Considering the hellfire club was pretty much the prequel to the brotherhood.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by Dr Tactics

Well they should be used in X4 instead of XMFC2 so Erik is old enough to have grown @#$ kids to recruit in his evil brotherhood.. And i believe X4 isn't in the current thought process. I could be wrong

This is true as well.... If Wanda and Pietro are used in fc2 they'd have to be at the very least children, unless they're given the normal mutant movie treatment and nearly all of there comic history aside from there powers are removed (ala iceman, colossus, rogue, havok, Cyclops, deadpool, gambit, etc....)

[LindseyNH]

*sigh* i kinda liked the dragonball movie....not as a dragonball fan, but as a fan of crappy movies....

[Whiskey Tango]

re Wanda and Pietro

SHH: What about the future of "The Avengers?" I don't know if you want to bring in new characters or just keep the core team. Characters like the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, are they part of Fox's deal or are they characters you could use?
Feige: We both have them. There's a specific arrangement with those two characters that would allow us to use them with "Avengers," but not discuss or reference their mutant or Magneto-related lineage. They can use them as mutants and as Magneto's relatives, but cannot have anything to do with "The Avengers."

SHH: So whichever universe uses them first basically gets to keep them.
Feige: Yeah. Contracts are always complicated. (chuckles)

http://www.superherohype.com/feature...ez-kevin-feige