DEMAND FOX/SONY/NEW LINE revert the comic IP film rights back to MARVEL (Disney)!

[Timstuff]

I would not mind Spidey in the Avengers, but since I know it wouldn't be the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man I can't say I'd be a fan of the idea. I am not very optimistic about the future of Spider-Man on film in general, but I am OK with that because I still love Raimi's trilogy.

 

[Chris Wallace]

or putting Wolverine and Spidey on Avengers...which I wont like

More or less what I meant by crossovers. And I agree.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I think that Marvel Studios would revert to just making a bunch of Spider-Man and X-Men movies if they had the rights back.

 

[hippie_hunter]

No they wouldn't. Both the Iron Man movies have made a ****load of money. And Thor has performed decently as well.

Meanwhile X-Men is showing off to be a franchise of diminishing returns. As for Spider-Man, yeah, they'd probably focus a lot on him.

 

[Godzilla2014]

No they wouldn't. Both the Iron Man movies have made a ****load of money. And Thor has performed decently as well.

Meanwhile X-Men is showing off to be a franchise of diminishing returns. As for Spider-Man, yeah, they'd probably focus a lot on him.

What I am saying is that Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America got movies partially because those franchises didn't have Spider-Man and X-Men to compete with for Marvel Studios' attention. I think you could count on Spidey being in the Avengers if Marvel Studios had the rights to him.

 

[hippie_hunter]

What I am saying is that Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America got movies partially because those franchises didn't have Spider-Man and X-Men to compete with for Marvel Studios' attention. I think you could count on Spidey being in the Avengers if Marvel Studios had the rights to him.

He probably would be. Besides, I'm in the opinion that Spidey has deserved his spot on the Avengers. Unlike a certain unkillable adamantium clawed X-Man.

Also, even though Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America got movies partially because Marvel didn't have the rights to Spider-Man and the X-Men, doesn't mean that those movies were not financially successful. If anything I'd see Marvel focusing more on Iron Man than the X-Men. He's currently a bigger success in movies and merchandising than the X-Men. Hell, they'd probably even focus more on Thor considering how Thor has made more money than the last two X-Men movies.

 

[Godzilla2014]

He probably would be. Besides, I'm in the opinion that Spidey has deserved his spot on the Avengers. Unlike a certain unkillable adamantium clawed X-Man.

Agreed.

Also, even though Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America got movies partially because Marvel didn't have the rights to Spider-Man and the X-Men, doesn't mean that those movies were not financially successful. If anything I'd see Marvel focusing more on Iron Man than the X-Men. He's currently a bigger success in movies and merchandising than the X-Men. Hell, they'd probably even focus more on Thor considering how Thor has made more money than the last two X-Men movies.

Possible. I think though you would see those characters in films less often.

 

[fearlessmontano]

Does the rights changing hands in any way guarantee quality films?

we know so far that marvel studios has not made any mistakes in making the transfer from comic books to big screen adaptions...after the rights to the hulk reverted back to marvel studios because of (universals studios failed attempt at making a movie) they made the incredible hulk. which one was a better movie? how bad do you think captain america and thor would have been if sony made them...marvel turned unknown superheros into dominating superheros overnight...think what they can do with a character thats already well known...dont forget that marvel studios is forced to make the best movies ever placed on the marvel screen because they are a studios focused entirely on making marvel movies...they dont make anything else...if spiderman flops sony can fall back on a non comic movie...sony and fox dont have to try to make anyone happy..all they have to do is make a decent, not so decent movie that says SPIDERMAN, and grab the money that comes in...they aren't reliant on it...thats why marvel studios has and will always make the best marvel adaption movies ever put on the big screen...THEY CREATED THE CHARACTERS THEY PUT UP THERE...

 

[Timstuff]

we know so far that marvel studios has not made any mistakes in making the transfer from comic books to big screen adaptions...

 

[Hypestyle]

heh.. i don't see the studios "listening" to fan demand with this.. unless the next filmed projects from these other studios totally crash and burn.. and even then that would be a bad precedent in general, contributing to the assertation that comic-films were just a fad.. so unless some fox-sony-WB execs have a V8, the handful of remaining characters will live on those plantations for time to come..

 

[roach]

and lets be honest....Sony and Fox have had bigger BO with their characters that Marvel

 

[cherokeesam]

and lets be honest....Sony and Fox have had bigger BO with their characters that Marvel

They've also got the bigger names/marketing tools. Spidey? X-Men? Fantastic Four? These are no-brainers....even Ed Wood could turn those into box office gold.

That's why we're not going to see Spider-Man and Wolverine be traded back to Marvel within our lifetime.

 

[kedrell]

and lets be honest....Sony and Fox have had bigger BO with their characters that Marvel

Sony has with the Spidey films, that's about it. Thor almost matched the top X-Men movie's WW gross(took the X-Men 3 films to get there). Cap looks to be doing good and I fully expect it to at least come in at #2 WW of the superhero films this summer, if not #1. And the Iron Man movies are far beyond the grosses of any of the movies FOX has made with Marvel characters.

 

[KenK]

I'm gonna go ahead and say, 'cause it needs to be said:

As great as both Thor and Captain America were, X-Men: First Class was better than both of 'em. Say what you will about its box office not being all that great, FOX will look at the films critical acclaim (it's one of the best reviewed of the year thus far, even more so than Marvel Studios' releases), and possibly home video sales, should the good word of mouth trickle down, there will definitely be a follow-up to that film.

 

[kedrell]

For my money it was the weakest of the 3. Not that it was bad, but it continued many annoying trends that had come before it in Singer's first two movies.

 

[Timstuff]

I'm gonna go ahead and say, 'cause it needs to be said:

As great as both Thor and Captain America were, X-Men: First Class was better than both of 'em. Say what you will about its box office not being all that great, FOX will look at the films critical acclaim (it's one of the best reviewed of the year thus far, even more so than Marvel Studios' releases), and possibly home video sales, should the good word of mouth trickle down, there will definitely be a follow-up to that film.

Agreed. XFC is definitely the best CB film this year-- and possibly the best since TDK. Even if it was possible for Marvel to get the rights back, Fox's X-men would be a tough act to follow.

 

[Spikey]

Could someone make a list with the characters owned by other studios?

Sony:
- Spiderman, Ghost Rider

Fox:
- X-Men, Fantastic Four, Daredevil

Universal:
- Currently none, they had Hulk

New Line Cinema:
- Currently none, they had Blade

Lionsgate:
- Currently none, they had The Punisher

 

[hippie_hunter]

Could someone make a list with the characters owned by other studios?

Sony:
- Spiderman, Ghost Rider

Fox:
- X-Men, Fantastic Four, Daredevil

Universal:
- Currently none, they had Hulk

New Line Cinema:
- Currently none, they had Blade

Lionsgate:
- Currently none, they had The Punisher

Columbia Pictures
- Spider-Man
- Ghost Rider

20th Century Fox
- X-Men (includes Wolverine, Deadpool)
- Fantastic Four (includes Dr. Doom and Silver Surfer)
- Daredevil (includes Elektra and Kingpin)

Universal Studios
- Incredible Hulk (distribution rights)

Paramount Pictures
- Iron Man (distribution rights)
- Iron Man 2 (distribution rights)
- Thor (distribution rights)
- Captain America: The First Avenger (distribution rights)

Walt Disney Pictures/Marvel Studios
- Ant-Man (formerly owned by Artisan/Lions Gate)
- Black Panther (formerly owned by Artisan/Lions Gate)
- Black Widow (formerly owned by Lions Gate)
- Blade (formerly owned by New Line Cinema)
- Captain America (formerly owned by Artisan/Lions Gate)
- Dr. Strange (formerly owned by Dimension Films/Miramax Films)
- Hulk (formerly owned by Universal Studios)
- Iron Fist (formerly owned by Lions Gate)
- Iron Man (formerly owned by New Line Cinema)
- Luke Cage (formerly owned by Columbia Pictures)
- Man-Thing (formerly owned by Artisan/Lions Gate)
- Namor (formerly owned by Universal)
- Nick Fury (includes S.H.I.E.L.D.)
- Power Pack (formerly owned by Artisan/Lions Gate)
- the Punisher (formerly owned by Artisan/Lions Gate)
- Thor (formerly owned by Sony Pictures)

 

[Spikey]

@hippie_hunter thanks a lot!

 

[psylockolussus]

Wow Lionsgate wasted all their opportunity to make those movies!

 

[kedrell]

I'm suprised LionsGate still exists as a studio and hasn't got swallowed up like New Line did.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'm suprised LionsGate still exists as a studio and hasn't got swallowed up like New Line did.

That's because Lions Gate is still an independent studio while New Line was a part of Time Warner. If Lions Gate fails, they have to answer to investors. And if they combine with other studios, it will probably be with smaller scale studios like Summit, the Weinstein Company, Relativity, Miramax, or FilmDistrict.

New Line on the other hand was folded into Warner Bros. as punishment for stupid decisions they made like selling the foreign box office rights to the Golden Compass. Even though it did fantastic business overseas, it bombed in the United States and thus New Line lost money on it.

 

[Raiden]

and lets be honest....Sony and Fox have had bigger BO with their characters that Marvel

I would also argue that in terms of box office potentials, both Spider-man and X-Men properties probably have an advantage over the Avengers. But Marvel couldn't have made all those movies by themselves back then anyway, and even now it is difficult enough to handle the Avengers and the various solo movies. However, I want to see Marvel getting back both DD and FF and as of now, it doesn't seemed very likely to happen given the "fast track" that these two movies currently have in their pre-production.

 

[DrCosmic]

I'm gonna go ahead and say, 'cause it needs to be said:

As great as both Thor and Captain America were, X-Men: First Class was better than both of 'em. Say what you will about its box office not being all that great, FOX will look at the films critical acclaim (it's one of the best reviewed of the year thus far, even more so than Marvel Studios' releases), and possibly home video sales, should the good word of mouth trickle down, there will definitely be a follow-up to that film.

XFC was notably better objectively, that's true. The flaws in that film were all subjective. That's why the box office isn't the strongest, even though it was a great film, it had a little something to put off a lot of people. For me it was the way they treated the black characters. For kendell it was the unsatisfying continuity they continued. Those, and other subjective flaws will follow the film to DVD, and will be much stronger in the word of mouth than they were in the cinema. It will do well, they all will, but XFC's critical excellence isn't going to transfer into commercial excellence, imho. It hasn't so far.

Thor and Cap, while not being quite as good as XFC, are easily as enjoyable, and for Thor, at times, moreso, and so even though they don't have the umph that XFC has, they still fly. In fact, I think that Thor had the breadth (fun, adventure) and Captain America had the depth (gravitas, theme) but XFC has the best of both.

Fox will follow up XFC because it's commercially viable, which is in part because it's critically excellent. Critical acclaim by itself doesn't get much done for a big film company.

 

[kedrell]

That's because Lions Gate is still an independent studio while New Line was a part of Time Warner. If Lions Gate fails, they have to answer to investors. And if they combine with other studios, it will probably be with smaller scale studios like Summit, the Weinstein Company, Relativity, Miramax, or FilmDistrict.

New Line on the other hand was folded into Warner Bros. as punishment for stupid decisions they made like selling the foreign box office rights to the Golden Compass. Even though it did fantastic business overseas, it bombed in the United States and thus New Line lost money on it.

Oh, ok. I see. I always thought they both were independant and that New Line had to seek financial shelter with giant WB after TGC bombed. I didn't know they were always just a subsidiary.