- Joined
- Mar 17, 2003
- Messages
- 15,443
- Reaction score
- 9,783
- Points
- 103
I'll never pay to see another Fox Fantastic Four film again.
The real problem is that neither will the general audience.
I'll never pay to see another Fox Fantastic Four film again.
Tentatively, I can see Fox trying to insert select FF main characters into some of the near-future X-Men features, though I don't know if that counts towards keeping the redevelopment rights.
Doesn't Neue Constantin and/or Chris Columbus's 1492 Productions still have some legal claim over feature rights? This would have to be dealt with as well.
Yeah, if not for the fans, who is the other mythical group of people waiting to line up for a Fox FF film and making the property valuable?
Random movie-goers who like comic book movies and are familiar with the Fantastic Four. The average person doesn't know or care which studio is making these movies, all they care about is if they look any good or not.
I agree that the fans alone can't make a film a hit (as Scott Pilgrim and Dredd showed us) but they are not completely irrelevant. Most of the time pleasing reasonable fans means pleasing the average filmgoer.
There's been no evidence whatsoever that FOX has the ability to merge their two separate Marvel licensing agreements together without the Mouse's approval. If they could have, they would have done so already.
And neither Constantin or 1492 Productions played a role in the behind the scenes expose on FFINO in the Hollywood Reporter or in the Negasonic/Ego swap. Constantin may get a producer credit and a check for their role as the original producer, but the German production house has no legal claim on the FF.
You assume way too much. There is no evidence to suggest that Fox can't and in my mind, that would be the operative legal fact when interepreting the contract.
Being as it would've probably been reported at some point if the contract covered crossovers, the contract is probably silent on the matter. As such, I'd say that Fox can do whatever it chooses to do. That is to say, if I am the judge, and I am reading the contractual language and the contract is silent as to crossover movies, I'd rule that Fox is free to do with the characters whatever they so choose. If Fox owns the general rights to make films with these characters, then Fox is free to make whatever films Fox so chooses and include whichever characters it so wishes to include in said films. Marvel sold the film rights. It does not get to dictate how said films are made or what form the films take. If Marvel sold general film rights, I would find that crossovers are included.
That said, I am sure some judges would find that if the contract is ambiguous, crossovers were beyond the intent of the parties at the time of formation and therefore outside of the scope.
That being said, I wouldn't take Fox not doing something as evidence that it can't. There is no reason to believe a Fantastic Four/X-Men crossover would be even slightly profitable or worth the investment. The Fantastic Four has simply failed to catch on in the cinema. Fox isn't going to risk that franchise tainting one of the few viable properties that it has.
You assume way too much. There is no evidence to suggest that Fox can't and in my mind, that would be the operative legal fact when interepreting the contract.
Being as it would've probably been reported at some point if the contract covered crossovers, the contract is probably silent on the matter. As such, I'd say that Fox can do whatever it chooses to do. That is to say, if I am the judge, and I am reading the contractual language and the contract is silent as to crossover movies, I'd rule that Fox is free to do with the characters whatever they so choose. If Fox owns the general rights to make films with these characters, then Fox is free to make whatever films Fox so chooses and include whichever characters it so wishes to include in said films. Marvel sold the film rights. It does not get to dictate how said films are made or what form the films take. If Marvel sold general film rights, I would find that crossovers are included.
That said, I am sure some judges would find that if the contract is ambiguous, crossovers were beyond the intent of the parties at the time of formation and therefore outside of the scope.
That being said, I wouldn't take Fox not doing something as evidence that it can't. There is no reason to believe a Fantastic Four/X-Men crossover would be even slightly profitable or worth the investment. The Fantastic Four has simply failed to catch on in the cinema. Fox isn't going to risk that franchise tainting one of the few viable properties that it has.
I'm getting deja vu here. I'm pretty sure we've had this argument before.
Though I work in real estate and not motion picture licensing, I can tell you that ambiguous contracts in my field are a big no no. If the terms of the agreement are not spelled in exacting details -and I very much doubt crossovers are covered - FOX and Disney/Marvel are going to have reopen the deal. A judge is not going to rule for one or the other party. They are going to tell them to put on their big boy pants and work it out. Just like they recently did with the X-Men TV deal.
As character crossovers were never intended in the original agreement - and have proven to be quite lucrative - Disney would be well within their rights to ask for a big piece of the crossover film nobody is asking for. So as far as I see that would kill the idea in the womb.
There was also an interview around the ASM2 release date in which Avi Arad specifically mentioned that an X-Men / Spidey crossover - brought up due to the DOFP clip played in the front of the film - would require the Mouse's approval. So clearly studios don't have unlimited rights in regard to these character licensing agreements.
We have had extensive discussions on this and reviewed many statements from many sources and there absolutely IS specific evidence that crossovers are not allowed including, but not limited to, this statement from Zak Penn:
http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=32928651&postcount=298
"I was also misquoted regarding Fox and the Fantastic Four. To clarify, I simply pointed out that other studios can't do crossovers like they had in the comics, but Marvel Studios can. I never asked Fox to do anything, nor did they stop me, those legal issues are not even up for debate."
Considering the quotes contradict one another and the source of the quotes, forgive me if I don't take Zak Penn's legal expertise as gospel. Fox bought these rights in the 90s. NO ONE would've ever anticipated crossover movies at the time. I would be absolutely stunned if the contract addresses crossovers. And if the contract is silent, there is room to maneuver.
I'll take his opinion over yours any day.![]()
And your presumption that the contract is silent makes no sense. The various rights to various characters were sliced up and distributed between several licenses even though most characters cross multiple properties (such as Dr. Doom, Galactus, Ego etc) and crossovers have been a mainstay of Marvel comic books from the start. The question of crossovers would have been obvious.
I can't be the only one remembering Dollman vs. Demonic Toys (1993), written by David S. GoyerIn the 90s, film crossover was unheard of. Hell, the only thing even comparable was the old Universal movies from the 30s like Frankenstein vs Wolfman. [...] Crossovers did not really exist at the time
In the legal profession, there is a saying: a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. I think we have just found a new one: When a person takes legal advice from the guy who wrote X-Men 3 over an attorney, Zak Penn has a ****ing idiot for a client.![]()
And what does the legal profession have to say about attorneys who give legal advice on contracts they haven't read?