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

[KenK]

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.

Yeah, but those two particular factors are only going to upset a small number of people. And I'm one of those people who looked at all the folks complaining about how the black characters were treated, and had one thought on my mind, as a black person myself . . . . "SHUT THE F*** UP!!!" When the whole concept of the comics and the characters are a civil rights allegory, I'm not going to get mad if they don't showcase elements of the real civil rights movement. Would it have been nice if they did, of course! But all the folks who wanted to get genuinely mad about it, even though they claimed to love the rest of the movie anyway, yeah, F*** 'em! Too much of that cryin' sounded like black folks thought they were owed something, and I have a low tolerance for that BS.

Continuity matters very little to general audiences.

A likelier scenario is that viewers of the last two X-related films were left with a bad taste in their mouths, and weren't given much evidence that this would be a better film, especially without the marquee names from those films (no McKellan, no Stewart, no Berry, no Jackman, his brief cameo aside)

 

[kedrell]

Just to clarify, my issues with XMFC weren't about deviations from source material. I'm not an X-Men fan and haven't ever read much about them. I could not care less about deviating from source material.

MY ISSUES were with the continuation of really bad storytelling habits that began way back in XM1. Mainly the utter lack of subtlety and them feeling the need for heavy handedness in getting their message across. Eg. Making the intolerant non-mutants act like f#&%ing idiots to get their point across that intolerance/racism/bigotry/whatever is bad. That just irritates the hell outta me and is the main reason why I rank it below Thor & Cap.

Singer has always had trouble being subtle and even though this was Vaughn's film, Singer's hand was felt very much in it.

 

[hippie_hunter]

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.

New Line was a part of TBS. For some reason Time Warner decided to keep New Line independent even as they folded most of the non-cable Turner assets into their Warner Bros. division such as Hanna-Barbera, Castle Rock, the film libraries of pre-1986 MGM and RKO Radio, Turner Home Entertainment, etc.

But a bunch of bad decisions like that messy legal stuff regarding how much money New Line owed Peter Jackson after the Lord of the Rings trilogy and essentially cutting all ties with him, selling the foreign rights to the Golden Compass, along with a string of underperforming (Snakes on a Plane, The Number 23, Mr. Woodcock) or flat out bombs (Shoot 'Em Up, Rendition, Martian Child, Love in the Time of Cholera) in 2007 made Time Warner give up on the division.

 

[KenK]

Just to clarify, my issues with XMFC weren't about deviations from source material. I'm not an X-Men fan and haven't ever read much about them. I could not care less about deviating from source material.

MY ISSUES were with the continuation of really bad storytelling habits that began way back in XM1. Mainly the utter lack of subtlety and them feeling the need for heavy handedness in getting their message across. Eg. Making the intolerant non-mutants act like f#&%ing idiots to get their point across that intolerance/racism/bigotry/whatever is bad. That just irritates the hell outta me and is the main reason why I rank it below Thor & Cap.

Singer has always had trouble being subtle and even though this was Vaughn's film, Singer's hand was felt very much in it.

Yeah, because people like that don't exist in our society today!

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Just to clarify, my issues with XMFC weren't about deviations from source material. I'm not an X-Men fan and haven't ever read much about them. I could not care less about deviating from source material.

MY ISSUES were with the continuation of really bad storytelling habits that began way back in XM1. Mainly the utter lack of subtlety and them feeling the need for heavy handedness in getting their message across. Eg. Making the intolerant non-mutants act like f#&%ing idiots to get their point across that intolerance/racism/bigotry/whatever is bad. That just irritates the hell outta me and is the main reason why I rank it below Thor & Cap.

Singer has always had trouble being subtle and even though this was Vaughn's film, Singer's hand was felt very much in it.

You realize that had it not been for Singer's approach in X-Men, you never woulda gotten any of the comic book movies that followed it?

Singer's films, and First Class, are superior movies to Marvel's. Iron Man being the only exception. I'm not talking numbers or source material accuracy. I'm talking quality.

As much as I liked Thor and Captain America, they're kids movies compared to Singer's X-Men films.

So yeah, to each his own, but Singer's hand paved the way for the movies you rank above his.

 

[DrCosmic]

Yeah, but those two particular factors are only going to upset a small number of people. And I'm one of those people who looked at all the folks complaining about how the black characters were treated, and had one thought on my mind, as a black person myself . . . . "SHUT THE F*** UP!!!" When the whole concept of the comics and the characters are a civil rights allegory, I'm not going to get mad if they don't showcase elements of the real civil rights movement. Would it have been nice if they did, of course! But all the folks who wanted to get genuinely mad about it, even though they claimed to love the rest of the movie anyway, yeah, F*** 'em! Too much of that cryin' sounded like black folks thought they were owed something, and I have a low tolerance for that BS.

Again, that's why I noted there were others. If you get together 5-10 factors that upset a relatively small number of people, you have a notable number of people not going to see a movie.

As for the complaints, it's one thing to overlook the thing you're aping. No one 'owes' that. Civil Rights movies as entertainment are, afaik, non-existant anyway. It's another thing to use Hollywood practices that have their origins in prejudice (killing and villainizing 100% of your black characters) in a movie about fighting and resisting racial prejudice. That's hypocritical, imo. Disliking that is not entitlement. The hypocrisy is even more pronounced when set in a time when real life fighting of the prejudice that you're both supporting and aping as your conflict is happening. Now they're free to do that, just as doctors are free to underdiagnose black patients while posting Equal Opportunity Employer signs on their windows. But I don't have to like it, and I shouldn't be thought of as a spoiled race card drawer when I call this sort of unconscious racism for what it is.

I'm not sure if black people 'deserve' to have black superheroes. Maybe having admirable superheroes that look like you is a privilege reserved for white people by virtue of being the rulers of pop culture. Not really sure about entitlement when it comes to that subject. I do know that X-Men carries with a theme of acceptance and fighting prejudice, and with that, an implicit promise that the theme applies to groups who are ostracized in real life. There's a reason it revived with Giant X-Men when it adapted this theme. XFC reneged on that promise. Do they owe the fans? Not sure, but the promise is there, nonetheless.

A likelier scenario is that viewers of the last two X-related films were left with a bad taste in their mouths, and weren't given much evidence that this would be a better film, especially without the marquee names from those films (no McKellan, no Stewart, no Berry, no Jackman, his brief cameo aside)

And the quirky 60's vibe. And the lackluster first trailer. All of these things, the ones I mentioend and the ones you mentioned work together to keep XFC from being a commericial outlier. They each affect a relatively small number of people and are working in concert to affect a notable number. Like a good team should, I guess. That's my point, not that killing and villainizing black people led to box office loss.

 

[kedrell]

Yeah, because people like that don't exist in our society today!

Dude, these were professional CIA agents. Being a bigot is one thing but gawking at the mutants like Jethro & Bubba visiting the zoo is just beyond the pale. As I said before, subtlety. As in the X-Men films have very little to none in them.

Singer & Vaughn need to give us the audience more credit.

 

[kedrell]

You realize that had it not been for Singer's approach in X-Men, you never woulda gotten any of the comic book movies that followed it?

True, but so what? If it wasn't him somone else would have come along and done it. Blade had already done it. Singer doesn't get unlimited good will for starting the decade.

Singer's films, and First Class, are superior movies to Marvel's. Iron Man being the only exception. I'm not talking numbers or source material accuracy. I'm talking quality.

As much as I liked Thor and Captain America, they're kids movies compared to Singer's X-Men films.

So yeah, to each his own, but Singer's hand paved the way for the movies you rank above his.

Yes, I would rank all the Marvel films over any of the Fox or Sony ones made of Marvel characters. What flaws there are in the MCU films tend to be much less egregious and usually come in terms of "I wish they'd have given me more of that"(which is kind of a good problem to have...keep them wanting more) rather than "I wish they hadn't kept that in"(what I've said at least once in every FOX or Sony film).

So Singer gets credit for what good he did but it isn't unlimited credit.

 

[Timstuff]

Dude, these were professional CIA agents. Being a bigot is one thing but gawking at the mutants like Jethro & Bubba visiting the zoo is just beyond the pale. As I said before, subtlety. As in the X-Men films have very little to none in them.

Singer & Vaughn need to give us the audience more credit.

As much as I love the movies (well, except for XMOW), I get where you're coming from.

"They're in that room, just please, leave us normal people alo-- BLAAAAARGH!"

That seemed like something out of a kids' cartoon, for reals.

 

[Russell Nash]

Disney really needs to get the rights back from Fox to make the Fantastic Four. It's literally live-action Incredibles and could pay off as a solid family fun franchise.

Rights for Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider and Daredevil are the most important. Sony and Fox will never let go of Spider-man and X-men.

 

[Aztec]

So as it stands now the following studios have the following franchises:

Sony
Spiderman
Ghost Rider

Fox
Fantastic Four
Daredevil
X-Men

I think we can realistically say that neither X-Men or Spiderman is coming back any time soon. They just make too much money for said studios, and it's just too easy to keep pumping out X-Men films to hold onto the franchise. Besides these characters work very well on their own.

Daredevil is a character I never really cared for but if they decide to make a shared Marvel Knights Cinematic Universe that could be a really cool concept. It appears that Marvel getting DD's rights back could be as little as a year away.

Ghost Rider will remain in Sony's hands for years to come since a new film is coming out next year. If it's as miserable as the last one was, it may revert back sooner. I would love to see this character come back because the Marvel Knights/Hearts of Darkness possibilities with this character are pretty limitless. Great character and often underused in the comics.

As for the Fantastic Four they have a chance of coming back as nothing is in production (or even near production) at the present. I have never really been a fan of these characters but Marvel needs the franchise back for the secondary characters. Just imagine how Doctor Doom, Silver Surfer, and Galactus could add to a massive Avengers cosmic event. They really need this franchise back in a big way!

 

[roach]

I dont know where you are getting your info but the new DD movie has a director and they are working on a script based on Born Again...doesnt seem like he's going back to Marvel anytime soon

 

[Chris Wallace]

As much as I love the movies (well, except for XMOW), I get where you're coming from.

"They're in that room, just please, leave us normal people alo-- BLAAAAARGH!"

That seemed like something out of a kids' cartoon, for reals.

I thought it made sense. The agent probably didn't give a damn about the mutants in the first place, so why die for them?

 

[Aztec]

I dont know where you are getting your info but the new DD movie has a director and they are working on a script based on Born Again...doesnt seem like he's going back to Marvel anytime soon

From what I'm hearing the film needs to be "In Production" to avoid reverting. Having a script and a director won't necessarily save a film from developmental hell. So we'll see...

 

[psylockolussus]

People should stop whining that Marvel should get the rights of Spider-Man and X-Men back.

Its not like there's a Marvel Studios film yet that is better than the Spider-Man 2 and X2.

 

[Timstuff]

I thought it made sense. The agent probably didn't give a damn about the mutants in the first place, so why die for them?

It was the way he shoved the words "normal people" into the sentence that made it seem too obvious what was going on. If he said "the mutants are in there, just let us go!" it would have had the same impact but you'd have to read into it more, and it would be a lot less forceful.

 

[spanish39]

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.

This is what angers me the most. The film was more decent and more "X-Men like" then all 3 previous installments. This however doesn't make me change my mind. As decent as it was, I still think MARVEL would produce something even better and more involved with why we love the X-Men in the 1st place.

In my mind I guess I'm to the point where it just no longer makes sense for a handful of film studios to be calling all the shots on characters they don't own and didn't create...all in the name of the all mighty dollar. Let the comic book company make comic book films with comic book characters...not a bunch of "outsiders" who will pillage the property. They are being treated like Indiana Jones by Spielberg and Lucas in an infamous South Park episode.

BTW, 3 pages for a supposed "non-issue." Sounds like more people are a little fed up besides me, and some don't even want it. Interesting.

 

[spanish39]

I dont know where you are getting your info but the new DD movie has a director and they are working on a script based on Born Again...doesnt seem like he's going back to Marvel anytime soon

There's a script but it's not ready, there's no deal on the tab;e for anyone but Slade...which means nothing until it's actually ready to shoot. FOX is scrambling to put something together just to keep the rights from reverting in either just under, or over, a year. They already said they would put out anything just to do it...but their window is closing and they could lose it.

The film HAS to literally be in physical production to retain anything...I work in the film industry and I can tell you that the message the wind carries about this film is that it is not ready yet. In fact, I know that the state it is in currently is a place where it would take years to physically start if it wasn't going to fall to Marvel/Disney...if those involved procrastinate.

 

[cherokeesam]

This is what angers me the most. The film was more decent and more "X-Men like" then all 3 previous installments. This however doesn't make me change my mind. As decent as it was, I still think MARVEL would produce something even better and more involved with why we love the X-Men in the 1st place.

In my mind I guess I'm to the point where it just no longer makes sense for a handful of film studios to be calling all the shots on characters they don't own and didn't create...all in the name of the all mighty dollar. Let the comic book company make comic book films with comic book characters...not a bunch of "outsiders" who will pillage the property. They are being treated like Indiana Jones by Spielberg and Lucas in an infamous South Park episode.

BTW, 3 pages for a supposed "non-issue." Sounds like more people are a little fed up besides me, and some don't even want it. Interesting.

It might not "make sense" to you and others, but it's a standard business decision to outsource work to other companies. That's what Marvel did in the 90s/early 00s, and for better or worse, many of those contracts remain in place today.

I *do* think that the "outsource" studios are stepping up their game this year and next --- XMFC was easily the best superhero film this year, and it *looks* like Amazing Spider-Man and even Ghost Rider 2 will be improvements over their predecessors (jury's still out, of course). And besides, both the outsourced studios *and* Marvel have a vested interest in seeing these movies succeed --- Marvel makes money regardless of whether their in-house studios make the film or someone else does.

 

[Spider-Vader]

I can see DD & FF going back soon. Fox may have a director, but they don't seem to be rushing it in production to keep the rights.

 

[roach]

I can see DD & FF going back soon. Fox may have a director, but they don't seem to be rushing it in production to keep the rights.

we dont know the extent of the contracts and what is set forth as moving forward on the properties to keep them at Fox nor the time limit when the rights revert back

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

None of us know the details of the contracts, but if I were Fox and I had no intention of making a film, I'd still go through the motions of pretending I was interested.

For the sake of discussion, let's imagine that the contract states that Fox must have Daredevil 'in active development' by the end of 2012 to retain the rights.

If I ran Fox, I'd have some people working on scripts and performing some basic tasks and then I'd say to Marvel: "Hey, do you want those Daredevil rights? I'll sell them back to you for $50 million."

If Fox doesn't even pretend to be interested in the property, Marvel will just wait them out with the knowledge that they'll get the rights back for free soon enough.

 

[Hellion]

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)

That reminds me...wasn't Power Pack supposed to get a show at some point a few years ago...

...seeing that list reminds me of all the "news & rumors" of the last few years...

...I still want to know what happened to Werewolf By Night...I remember...back in 03-04, it seemed like it was going to be the next horror themed character before Man-Thing in 2005......small tidbits of "news" was coming out on that...and then nothing......just disappeared...faded away...

 

[Hellion]

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.

I keep changing my mind......previews wise, I though Thor was the weakest, I was surprised how much I enjoyed it when it came out...but after seeing the 3 in theaters and more recently as they've been released on video...Thor is still the weakest IMO, again still enjoy it. I keep changing my position between Cap and X-Men...I do agree with you about the "annoying trends" though...I usually preach/practice the comics are their own thing and the films are their own things...but I still get bothered by some issues with the X-Films as whole...

 

[Raiden]

So do you guys really think FOX will go ahead with their plan to make a reboot off FF & DD, as well as their upcoming slate of X-Men movies/sequel like The Wolverine, a sequel for First Class, and a spinoff of Deadpool? I just can't see FOX make all of these movies, and so far we haven't heard much about the FF & DD reboot.