Fox's STAN LEE

[psylockolussus]

http://www.superherohype.com/news/3...es-life-rights-to-make-action-adventure-movie

Fox acquires Stan Lee’s life rights to make action-adventure movie

In a rather bizarre turn of events, The Hollywood Reporter brings word that 20th Century Fox has acquired the life rights to legendary comic book creator Stan Lee and intends to make a ’70s-set action-adventure film with Lee as the main character.

The outlet reports that Twilight, The Maze Runner, and Power Rangers producers Marty Bowen and Wyck Godfrey are attached to produce the project, which they’re describing as having a similar tone to Kingsman: The Secret Service and “Roger Moore James Bond” movies, which were noted for their campy nature, over-the-top scenarios, and one-liners.

Lee is no stranger to the movies himself, having made a cameo appearance in countless Marvel films ranging from X-Men and Spider-Man in the early ’00s all the way to recent films like Deadpool and Captain America: Civil War. Lee has also appeared as himself in some feature films and TV shows including Mallrats and Entourage. In some films, Lee even played characters he created such as mailman Willie Lumpkin in 2005’s Fantastic Four.

Fox has previously made a number of Stan Lee-inspired projects, having made nine X-Men films and three Fantastic Four films. There are currently no writers attached to the project and no official word on whether Lee will cameo in the film.

At first after reading the headline, I thought Fox is gonna adapt his real life-story into a movie, how he created Marvel but reading the article... an action/adventure series with a lead character named Stan Lee set in the 1970s...

I guess only time can tell.

 

[Alien Anal]

Man no lie I had a dream last night that i was hanging with stan Lee and we discussed him being in a movie. Seeing this news this morning blew my mind. Obviously it doesn't mean anything but its just a weird coincidence.

 

[:eek:]

Maybe they're hoping for a "comic creators cinematic universe". Maybe a Steve Ditko-spinoff will be announced soon too. Feels like anything is possible in crazy Hollywood these days...

 

[Donnie Darko]

Will this be a Armie Hammer Lone Ranger situation where the Stan character gets the glory while heavily relying on his sidekick Jack Kirby to do most of the heavy lifting?

 

[Kyle]

It would make sense, BUT I have no idea how this can ever be done with Fox behind it since they need to use Stan Lee's characters to truly make it work...

[YT]1N9TIvIEnpA[/YT]

I just don't see how going in an interesting direction with this can be possible since FOX basically only owns the X-Men and Fantastic Four while Disney owns everything else now.

 

[Ozbridge]

I just don't see how going in an interesting direction with this can be possible since FOX basically only owns the X-Men and Fantastic Four while Disney owns everything else now.

Isn't this movie a fictionalized version of Stan Lee and has nothing to do with the studios that hold the right of his Marvel characters? Or do you think just because a studio exclusively holds the cinematic right of an author's work it means the studio will hold the right to the biographical cinematic right of his/ her life too?

 

[Eddie Dean]

INT. MARVEL COMICS - DAY.

STEVE DITKO invents Spider-Man.

STAN LEE enters.

STAN LEE
**** you, Ditko! I made Spider-Man!

Stan Lee throws Ditko out a window.

NARRATOR
Tune in next week for more Stan Lee!

 

[Lencho01]

http://entertainmeweakly.tumblr.com/post/146727524640/till-then-keep-thy-webs-untangled-stan-lee

 

[Kyle]

Isn't this movie a fictionalized version of Stan Lee and has nothing to do with the studios that hold the right of his Marvel characters? Or do you think just because a studio exclusively holds the cinematic right of an author's work it means the studio will hold the right to the biographical cinematic right of his/ her life too?

Anyone who knows anything about legal matters can tell you there's a lot of complications that become involved: the prime one being how much can they mention and show Stan Lee's creations and to what capacity on film. Disney is going to be looking through this thing a fine comb because it's rife for legal complications. There's an obvious reason why only Disney can make a biopic about Walt Disney and Disney. Right now, Disney largely owns the film rights to these characters. It would be like someone trying to tell a biopic about Jim Henson without having the rights thus being unable to show in any capacity Sesame Street and the Muppets - it starts falling into, "then what's the point?" territory. Unless they do like 'WALT BEFORE MICKEY' and only use what they have leading up to MARVEL, which I have serious doubts that's what anyone would want here.

If Disney and MARVEL Productions was making this, great that would be one thing. With Fox making it, there will undoubtably be road blocks to what they can and cannot do, show, say, and etcetera because of film rights on his creations that will have an obvious impact on the final product. As said, it's like a company making a Jim Henson film when they're restricted to hardly showing to not showing at all anything about the Muppets or Sesame Street. At best, we're probably looking at a 'Walt Before Mickey' or 'Flemming: The Man Who Would Be Bond' kind of scenario.

Or in lamen terms, in the following "depict" doesn't mean include them as characters - rather showing the behind the scenes of what went into them to sometimes just mentioning them. Just because you can make a film about Walt Disney doesn't mean you can depict the Disney content he's made without getting the content rights. Just because you can make a film about Jim Henson doesn't mean you can depict the Muppets and Sesame Street without getting the content rights. Just because you can make a film or series about Ian Flemming doesn't mean you can depict James Bond without getting the content rights. JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN MAKE A FILM ABOUT STAN LEE DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN DEPICT UN-OWNED MARVEL CHARACTERS WITHOUT GETTING THE CONTENT RIGHTS.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

This idea sounds strange & fun at the same time...

 

[Schlosser85]

So is this kind of like that Sam Rockwell movie where he played game show host Chuck Berris as if he were a secret CIA agent?

 

[Kyle]

So is this kind of like that Sam Rockwell movie where he played game show host Chuck Berris as if he were a secret CIA agent?

Most likely and that would be awesome, but unfortunately it's Fox instead of Disney. Thus, what they can show on film is bound to have road blocks and limitations unfortunately because Fox doesn't own the film rights to Stan Lee's creations. It's up against the same road blocks Fox would have if they tried to make a biopic about Walt Disney. Which they legally can do, 'Walt Before Mickey', but it presents similar road blocks because of the content rights being tied up.

 

[smallville fan]

Huh funny. When I made a thread on a possible Stan Lee biopic, many didn't like the idea of Disney/Marvel producing it. What a weird 180 lol.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=479527&highlight=

 

[Kyle]

Huh funny. When I made a thread on a possible Stan Lee biopic, many didn't like the idea of Disney/Marvel producing it. What a weird 180 lol.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=479527&highlight=

The main thing is the film rights to depicting characters. If it was so and so company can show so and so without issue, it wouldn't be a problem. When it's so and so company can only show a limited amount of that without issue, any more and there's legal problems - that becomes an unfortunate road block.

Basically company making it isn't the key - it's have the rights to everything Stan created to actually so something with it. Best example is 'Walt Before Mickey' - you can make a biopic of Walt's early years without being Disney. However, once it starts moving beyond that into portraying intellectual property you don't own the film rights to that's when it starts becoming a hurdle.

I have no idea how Fox can remotely make the larger MARVEL universe in any real shape or form a part of this film without crossing over into having intellectual property issues. If they could have played with it, I think they would have found some legal barriers to jump over with Deadpool outside of just referencing Fox's MARVEL. Outside the Deadpool example though, the other real big example is - as said - 'Walt Before Mickey.'

 

[Sundancer]

Anyone who knows anything about legal matters can tell you there's a lot of complications that become involved: the prime one being how much can they mention and show Stan Lee's creations and to what capacity on film. Disney is going to be looking through this thing a fine comb because it's rife for legal complications. There's an obvious reason why only Disney can make a biopic about Walt Disney and Disney. Right now, Disney largely owns the film rights to these characters. It would be like someone trying to tell a biopic about Jim Henson without having the rights thus being unable to show in any capacity Sesame Street and the Muppets - it starts falling into, "then what's the point?" territory. Unless they do like 'WALT BEFORE MICKEY' and only use what they have leading up to MARVEL, which I have serious doubts that's what anyone would want here.

If Disney and MARVEL Productions was making this, great that would be one thing. With Fox making it, there will undoubtably be road blocks to what they can and cannot do, show, say, and etcetera because of film rights on his creations that will have an obvious impact on the final product. As said, it's like a company making a Jim Henson film when they're restricted to hardly showing to not showing at all anything about the Muppets or Sesame Street. At best, we're probably looking at a 'Walt Before Mickey' or 'Flemming: The Man Who Would Be Bond' kind of scenario.

Or in lamen terms, in the following "depict" doesn't mean include them as characters - rather showing the behind the scenes of what went into them to sometimes just mentioning them. Just because you can make a film about Walt Disney doesn't mean you can depict the Disney content he's made without getting the content rights. Just because you can make a film about Jim Henson doesn't mean you can depict the Muppets and Sesame Street without getting the content rights. Just because you can make a film or series about Ian Flemming doesn't mean you can depict James Bond without getting the content rights. JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN MAKE A FILM ABOUT STAN LEE DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN DEPICT UN-OWNED MARVEL CHARACTERS WITHOUT GETTING THE CONTENT RIGHTS.

A lot may be allowed under fair use and parody laws. It depends on the script. All we know is it's an action-adventure movie.

 

[Kyle]

A lot may be allowed under fair use and parody laws. It depends on the script. All we know is it's an action-adventure movie.

With those film rights being primarily owned by Disney who has been highly stringent about these kinds of things in the past, I have doubts that a lot if some can get by.

Action adventure that may be largely restricted to Timely rather than Marvel.

 

[Ozbridge]

But I don't think just because a company doesn't own all cinematic right doesn't mean it'll have to struggle too much to make a film about the creator. It's unlikely they will reference Marvel characters the whole film anyway, there're half a dozen biographical works about Ian Fleming and I guess they have to ask for the right to reference James Bond at some point. Even among films about Disney (the company, not Walt) Once Upon a Mouse and the Sweatbox are made by other production companies. Sure if Disney produced this film then they could freely use every characters (that are not owned by Fox and Sony) but I don't think Fox making it is so unorthodox that worth mentioning.

 

[Kyle]

Here's the thing though, and I'm positive I'm not alone, when Stan Lee biopic comes to mind - I want it to focus on Stan Lee in his prime being involved with everything he's known for. I want a biopic that isn't road blocked and has full creative freedom, not one hindered by having to stay within the line of legal issues.

ADDING: Once Before A Mouse was made with Disney Pictures. Sweatbox also isn't a film that would have any trouble getting made, it wasn't a big motion picture release rather a wife making a documentary about a single Disney film her husband played a strong role in. Walt Before Mickey was not and their hands were legally tied in what they could and could not show because of it. Remember you're talking about a COMPETITOR who has been stringent in not playing ball with the MARVEL Cinematic Universe suddenly asking them to play nice. If Fox bows and allows itself to play game chances are Disney will allow them more leeway, if they don't - this could easily get nasty.

You're closing your eyes and ears if you think something legal won't come from this whether it's Fox finally playing ball (which would be a god send) OR Fox will get wiped through the dirt for it with any law suit that Disney can find.

You need look no further than how MARVEL is treating X Men and F4 in comics and how only MARVEL cinematic films are getting action figures, not the Fox MARVEL films. These aren't two companies that are playing nicely right now and no incentive on the table for that to change any time soon.

 

[Arachnerd]

This has to be the most bizarrely awesome piece of movie news I've read yet.

 

[Ozbridge]

Here's the thing though, and I'm positive I'm not alone, when Stan Lee biopic comes to mind - I want it to focus on Stan Lee in his prime being involved with everything he's known for. I want a biopic that isn't road blocked and has full creative freedom, not one hindered by having to stay within the line of legal issues.

ADDING: Once Before A Mouse was made with Disney Pictures. Sweatbox also isn't a film that would have any trouble getting made, it wasn't a big motion picture release rather a wife making a documentary about a single Disney film her husband played a strong role in. Walt Before Mickey was not and their hands were legally tied in what they could and could not show because of it. Remember you're talking about a COMPETITOR who has been stringent in not playing ball with the MARVEL Cinematic Universe suddenly asking them to play nice. If Fox bows and allows itself to play game chances are Disney will allow them more leeway, if they don't - this could easily get nasty.

You're closing your eyes and ears if you think something legal won't come from this whether it's Fox finally playing ball (which would be a god send) OR Fox will get wiped through the dirt for it with any law suit that Disney can find.

You need look no further than how MARVEL is treating X Men and F4 in comics and how only MARVEL cinematic films are getting action figures, not the Fox MARVEL films. These aren't two companies that are playing nicely right now and no incentive on the table for that to change any time soon.

But doesn't Fox just need to ask and pay for the right to reference from Marvel Studio/ produce the movie in association with Marvel? Aren't they currently doing so with the Legion series? I don't pay attention to the rival between studios (and I won't pretend that I know much about it) but I assume that Fox knows what permission (if any) they need to ask for before they actually announce the movie.

 

[Kyle]

They can mention MARVEL. Nobody is saying that they can't. Obviously they can. Legion is X-Men related. Everything X-Men and Fantastic Four related is fair game. It's everything else Disney has either already some of the MARVEL film rights to or it wouldn't surprise me if they basically own all characters now with the exception of X Men and F4.

Like Walt Before Mickey and the Fleming biopic series, as said best we can hope for right now is a Timely focused Stan movie ending with F4 and nothing really beyond that or it'll come off as self serving to audiences and critics since they'd only be able to delve into X Men and have to by and large ignore the rest which will seem odd.

I'd dare say that even Lionsgate would have an easier time negotiating this than Fox does right now due to them being competitiors rather than partners (like they are with Sony) due to the way Fox is refusing to play ball which, as said, has led to almost sabotage by MARVEL on Fox such as with refusing film merchandising. That's pretty low ball tactics that I don't see suddenly changing.

 

[Ozbridge]

They can mention MARVEL. Nobody is saying that they can't. Obviously they can. Legion is X-Men related. Everything X-Men and Fantastic Four related is fair game. It's everything else Disney has either already some of the MARVEL film rights to or it wouldn't surprise me if they basically own all characters now with the exception of X Men and F4.

Like Walt Before Mickey and the Fleming biopic series, as said best we can hope for right now is a Timely focused Stan movie ending with F4 and nothing really beyond that or it'll come off as self serving to audiences and critics since they'd only be able to delve into X Men and have to by and large ignore the rest.

That's what I think too, Fox can only freely reference their own X-men and FF, if they want to touch other properties they have to ask for permission from Marvel Studio and Sony.

 

[Kyle]

Which MARVEL/Disney wouldn't do and SONY being friends now with Marvel wouldn't do as well due to the poor relations they have with Fox. As said Lionsgate right now has a far better chance than Fox does. They actively have seeked out to sabotage Fox for not playing ball, they have no incentive to bow down to Fox now. If anything they'll see this as a chance to pry into them to try to force a partnership that FOX (not Marvel) has been refusing.

Also just remembered even Timely would be an issue comically, no puns intended, since that's Captain America and Namor territory. Unless Namor came with F4... Still would be difficult though due to Cap.

 

[Ozbridge]

Which MARVEL/Disney wouldn't do and SONY being friends now with Marvel wouldn't do as well due to the poor relations they have with Fox. As said Lionsgate right now has a far better chance than Fox does. They actively have seeked out to sabotage Fox for not playing ball, they have no incentive to bow down to Fox now. If anything they'll see this as a chance to pry into them to try to force a partnership that FOX (not Marvel) has been refusing.

Also just remembered even Timely would be an issue comically, no puns intended, since that's Captain America and Namor territory.

Well then Fox will just need to do whatever they can do since Lee's biographical right belongs to them now, which is the most important thing to get to make a Stan Lee biopic. Anyway I can't wait for the casting and director consideration.

 

[Kyle]

You said most important thing. However, what you're missing is that Fox can barely navigate Stan's time at Timely Comics due to them not having the Captain America rights. And the furthest they can really go into Marvel is the Fantastic Four. Right now they'll have an improbable time mentioning anyone else other than X Men. So you're largely looking at a depiction of Stan without his creations which is like making a movie about Victor Frankenstein without his monster.

Basically only way right now is to play ball and for them to fold. To bring in copyrights they don't have they need to consult Disney which right now they are on bad Marvel terms with. As said, Lionsgate would have little to no problems getting access. Fox would/will due to their own behavior. Marvel can't even say mutant without getting sued by Fox because Fox won't allow them leeway to even use that term. When Fox is acting like that, Disney doesn't need to make any leeway back and I partly agree with their sabotaging because something as little as that is pety. Unless Fox plays ball, Disney is gonna play impossible to get with them.

Their conflict will either result in half a film OR be what broke the camel's back and get Fox to play along. Disney will undoubtedly see this as a way to get their "partnership."