Days of Future Past Bryan Singer not directing X-Men: First Class?

[Raiden]

Hopefully this turns out horrible and Disney takes it over thereafter. Seems like Fox really wants to have FC and Wolverine 2 out at the same time because they are running out of time with FF and DD.

I hope that Fox will run out of time with FF and DD; I have no interest seeing a reboot of either franchise in the hands of Fox. I'm still surprised that Fox hasn't lost the right of DD already, because Elektra was released eons ago and by all means the license should've reverted back to Marvel.

As for Singer not directing First Class, I'm disappointed but Fox has a great opportunity to cast an inspired choice like Paramount did with Favearu and Iron Man. However, the only certainty is that Fox will screw it up again somehow.

 

[FaT_tONle]

What's the earliest Fox can have DD out? Late 2011? Early 2012? And what are the chances it happens before FC and Wolverine, or concurrently for that matter? If Disney doesn't take it back because they don't want a legal mess on their hands, I'll give up on Marvel's in house projects as well.

 

[Raiden]

What's the earliest Fox can have DD out? Late 2011? Early 2012? And what are the chances it happens before FC and Wolverine, or concurrently for that matter? If Disney doesn't take it back because they don't want a legal mess on their hands, I'll give up on Marvel's in house projects as well.

I read from another site that Fox can retain their Marvel licenses as long they have them "in production", but they don't need to actually make a movie. It means they can keep the licenses indefinitely if they want to. I'm trying to find out if it's true, but if this is indeed the case then Marvel really made a huge blunder when they sign that agreement with Fox years ago.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Mmm hmm. I believe you.

As I knew you would

Hey, I skipped Wolverine, FF2, Blade: Trinity etc. I don't support what I don't like.

I skipped, Eragon, AVP2, FF2 and a few others, only Fox movies I have paid to see since X3 are Die Hard 4, Wolvie and Avatar.

 

[Manic X]

As I knew you would



I skipped, Eragon, AVP2, FF2 and a few others, only Fox movies I have paid to see since X3 are Die Hard 4, Wolvie and Avatar.

So you saw Wolvie after hearing all the negativity about it, AND after being 'disappointed' after with X3, huh?
Yeah, you won't be first in line to see first class. (sarcasm BTW)

 

[Deaths Head II]

I haven't seen a Fox film in theaters since X3, aside from Avatar which I consider to be a very special exception.

 

[Snikt]

So do some of you actually boycott all Fox movies, or just the ones you think don't look good? Just curious.

This is just me, but if I'm interested in the movie, think it looks good or have been looking forward to it for a long time, I'll definitely see it it theaters.

The Fox movies I've seen the past few years, X3, FF2, Die Hard 4, Wolverine, AVP 2, 28 Weeks Later, The Simpsons Movie, Avatar, Percy Jackson.

I've liked all of 'em, but like I said that's just me.

 

[Majik1387]

So is this report concrete or just hearsay?

So do some of you actually boycott all Fox movies, or just the ones you think don't look good? Just curious.

I boycott in the sense of pirating.

The Fox movies I've seen the past few years, X3, FF2, Die Hard 4, Wolverine, AVP 2, 28 Weeks Later, The Simpsons Movie, Avatar, Percy Jackson.

I've liked all of 'em, but like I said that's just me.

Out of those, I've only paid to see X3, AVP2, 28 Weeks Later, and the Simpsons movie.
I waited for Die Hard 4 to go on DVD.

They were ok, entertaining.

 

[Deaths Head II]

I haven't had enough interest in any Fox movie to see them in theaters. I almost didn't see X3 in theaters but I figured I saw the first 2 so I might as well see how X3 is for myself. I wasn't really excited to see it and I regretted it after. I was going to see Wolverine in theaters but then I decided I didn't feel like it so I didn't.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah Majik you basically funded their DB:E budget... but hey it's your money. The only Fox movie I have since since X-3 is Avatar, unless there is something I am missing.

 

[Majik1387]

Well as someone who could care less about DB, I didn't care how much they butchered DB:E, as I pirated that one as well.

 

[JackMercy]

I read from another site that Fox can retain their Marvel licenses as long they have them "in production", but they don't need to actually make a movie. It means they can keep the licenses indefinitely if they want to. I'm trying to find out if it's true, but if this is indeed the case then Marvel really made a huge blunder when they sign that agreement with Fox years ago.

True dat. Although "in development" would be a more apt term. Usually, as long as a pencil pusher at Fox keeps forwarding crazy Rothy and his execs the appropriate documents to sign, i.e. a piece of paper that says "Fox Studios is actively developing the Daredevil property for a feature film" (including proof that someone -- anyone -- is working on it, from a scriptwriter to a plaster-model maker) then Fox could/would generally retain the rights to said material in perpetuity...

However, some property deals may indeed include production clauses (i.e., "Production must begin on an X-Men feature film within five years of the studio's last production, or the rights to said property are hereby forfeited to the original holders.") -- which might in some cases force the studio to strongly consider entering into principle production by a certain date, no matter what talent is involved, if only to retain the rights to the material for another half-decade or so!

I think there's a couple of these debates going on right now around town...

That's the business, folks!

 

[FaT_tONle]

If the reboots have to happen at Fox then I hope it's part of Marvels universe. You don't need a cameo or a time frame (ie: Before or After Avengers) but just a mention of something related, like Natasha Romonov/Russian spy in the news paper or something. Probably too late to do that with X-Men unless they reboot, but it's still possible.

 

[danoyse]

So do some of you actually boycott all Fox movies, or just the ones you think don't look good? Just curious.

This is just me, but if I'm interested in the movie, think it looks good or have been looking forward to it for a long time, I'll definitely see it it theaters.

Same here. I have better things to do than hold personal vendettas against movie studios, even if they annoy me as much as Fox usually does.

If I want to see the movie, I go. If I don't like it, somehow I find to a way to pick up the pieces and move on. It's really that simple.

 

[Majik1387]

If the reboots have to happen at Fox then I hope it's part of Marvels universe. You don't need a cameo or a time frame (ie: Before or After Avengers) but just a mention of something related, like Natasha Romonov/Russian spy in the news paper or something. Probably too late to do that with X-Men unless they reboot, but it's still possible.

Won't happen.

 

[Silvermoth]

If Singer goes, My interest will plummet.

 

[Raiden]

True dat. Although "in development" would be a more apt term. Usually, as long as a pencil pusher at Fox keeps forwarding crazy Rothy and his execs the appropriate documents to sign, i.e. a piece of paper that says "Fox Studios is actively developing the Daredevil property for a feature film" (including proof that someone -- anyone -- is working on it, from a scriptwriter to a plaster-model maker) then Fox could/would generally retain the rights to said material in perpetuity...

However, some property deals may indeed include production clauses (i.e., "Production must begin on an X-Men feature film within five years of the studio's last production, or the rights to said property are hereby forfeited to the original holders.") -- which might in some cases force the studio to strongly consider entering into principle production by a certain date, no matter what talent is involved, if only to retain the rights to the material for another half-decade or so!

I think there's a couple of these debates going on right now around town...

That's the business, folks!

Ugh, this just makes me sick. Was Marvel back then so desperate for money that they'd let Fox keep their licenses indefinitely using this legal loophole? Seriously, I hope Disney will have their top lawyers read every fine print on that old contract and see if they can wrestle the licenses back to Marvel.

 

[Deaths Head II]

If the reboots have to happen at Fox then I hope it's part of Marvels universe. You don't need a cameo or a time frame (ie: Before or After Avengers) but just a mention of something related, like Natasha Romonov/Russian spy in the news paper or something. Probably too late to do that with X-Men unless they reboot, but it's still possible.

Yep, not going to happen.

I wish Fox and Sony would release their death grips on the license and just make a deal with Marvel to distribute like Universal and Paramount do. Is Fox so determined to make 90 minute films that they insist on producing the films themselves?

 

[Silvermoth]

If Singer goes, My interest will plummet.

 

[Electrix]

Is Fox so determined to make 90 minute films that they insist on producing the films themselves?

...well yes. That's how they make money from it. If they allowed Marvel to make the films they wouldn't make nearly as much just from distributing.

The fact that they produce and distribute means they get to reap most of the profits. Which was the whole point of them purchasing the rights in the first place.

Paramount only distribute Iron Man etc. Marvel had the financing to produce themselves, but didn't have the means to distribute. After The Avengers Disney will be doing all the distributing anyway, as they own Marvel now.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Yep, not going to happen.

I wish Fox and Sony would release their death grips on the license and just make a deal with Marvel to distribute like Universal and Paramount do. Is Fox so determined to make 90 minute films that they insist on producing the films themselves?

I doubt Fox will remain with full creative control next time they reboot. Sony moved immediately in terms of a director and script once SM4 was derailed. The minute Fox is serious about going ahead with FF or DD, I am sure Disney will try to take a stake in it. FF could be a hugely viable franchise for Disney. If they don't work out a distribution deal, it will probably be something where they lose more and more control per subsequent movies. I just hope it won't be too late by then.

 

[Project862006]

never thought of this but it would be cool if they got John Woo to direct Wolverine 2

 

[Deaths Head II]

...well yes. That's how they make money from it. If they allowed Marvel to make the films they wouldn't make nearly as much just from distributing.

The fact that they produce and distribute means they get to reap most of the profits. Which was the whole point of them purchasing the rights in the first place.

Paramount only distribute Iron Man etc. Marvel had the financing to produce themselves, but didn't have the means to distribute. After The Avengers Disney will be doing all the distributing anyway, as they own Marvel now.

Still, neither FF nor DD are giving any profits as is. The last installments in both franchises yielded disappointing profits and right now they're yielding zero profits since Fox is doing nothing except what is necessary to keep the license. Even the profit intake from distribution is better then zero profit. It's not like Fox is above letting another studio do all the work producing a film they had no intention of making and taking a cut of the profit. They did it with Watchmen.

 

[Sawyer]

If Singer doesnt come back for First Class, I'd love it if Fox got Joss Whedon.

 

[Deaths Head II]

If Singer doesnt come back for First Class, I'd love it if Fox got Joss Whedon.

They would probably never do that, but it would be so awesome.