Fant4stic I think this deserves its own thread...Josh Trank denounces Fantastic Four

[SSJ4_Haruhi]

If Deadpool 2 does take F4 2's release date, I'd love Deadpool to have the audacity to joke about how much F4 bombed.

 

[sleekstereo]

Fantastic Four travel to Planet of the Apes.

Honestly, I'll watch that. Lol

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

yeah im sorry but i dont buy this tweet, yes im not stupid and will admit that fox meddling could have caused a lot of problems but if anyone thinks that if tranks got his way 100% this film would be amazing are kidding themselves

the script was still poor, the tone was still far to gritty and miserable and the storyline was the furthest thing from the core of the ff characters as could be, yeah the smartest man in the marvel U only goes on his mission because he gets wasted and leaves girl behind

also the whole "mine would have got amazing reviews" is something like a 5 year old would say, he might as well claimed his dad could beat uo the fox's board members dads

 

[Zarex]

Yes they can.

If true, FOX could have maintained the rights to Daredevil by having young Matt Murdock make an brief appearance in X-Men: First Class. The time period would have fit in perfectly with Carnahan's 70s era DD reboot.

It's not true.

Actually, I doubt they would. Fox has the film rights to the Fantastic Four. How they choose to use them is irrelevant, provided they use them.

In order for crossovers to be possible, crossover language would had to be written into both the X-Men and FF contracts that were signed back in the 1990s. At a time when FOX wasn't certain about making either film, let alone crossing them over. It's highly doubtful such language was incorporated into the terms of the two distinct licensing agreements.

And if such language doesn't exist - and I highly doubt it does - what does Marvel gets paid for a licensing fee? Are they paid the lower % of the X-Men contract or the higher amount of the FF contract? Or a combination of the two. If this % isn't in both contracts, FOX and Marvel have to negotiate new terms. We'll see how that goes.

 

[The Infernal]

If Deadpool 2 does take F4 2's release date, I'd love Deadpool to have the audacity to joke about how much F4 bombed.

I would hope so too. DP makes fun of Fox for sewing his mouth shut and a shot at Green Lantern. I would hope that by that time there's enough distance between this travesty and Fox that they would allow a tongue in cheek jab at FF.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

If true, FOX could have maintained the rights to Daredevil by having young Matt Murdock make an brief appearance in X-Men: First Class. The time period would have fit in perfectly with Carnahan's 70s era DD reboot.

It's not true.




In order for crossovers to be possible, crossover language would had to be written into both the X-Men and FF contracts that were signed back in the 1990s. At a time when FOX wasn't certain about making either film, let alone crossing them over. It's highly doubtful such language was incorporated into the terms of the two distinct licensing agreements.

And if such language doesn't exist - and I highly doubt it does - what does Marvel gets paid for a licensing fee? Are they paid the lower % of the X-Men contract or the higher amount of the FF contract? Or a combination of the two. If this % isn't in both contracts, FOX and Marvel have to negotiate new terms. We'll see how that goes.

And the legend of the X-Men/Fantastic Four crossover grows!

 

[Zarex]

And the legend of the X-Men/Fantastic Four crossover grows!

Squeee! I can't wait to see the X-Men battle characters from one of the most hated comic book movies ever put to film!

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Squeee! I can't wait to see the X-Men battle characters from one of the most hated comic book movies ever put to film!

Just because they've had these characters for over 15 years and never once attempted it doesn't mean they can't!

 

[Matt]

If true, FOX could have maintained the rights to Daredevil by having young Matt Murdock make an brief appearance in X-Men: First Class. The time period would have fit in perfectly with Carnahan's 70s era DD reboot.

It's not true.

A brief cameo is not sufficient to avoid reversion.

In order for crossovers to be possible, crossover language would had to be written into both the X-Men and FF contracts that were signed back in the 1990s. At a time when FOX wasn't certain about making either film, let alone crossing them over. It's highly doubtful such language was incorporated into the terms of the two distinct licensing agreements.

And if such language doesn't exist - and I highly doubt it does - what does Marvel gets paid for a licensing fee? Are they paid the lower % of the X-Men contract or the higher amount of the FF contract? Or a combination of the two. If this % isn't in both contracts, FOX and Marvel have to negotiate new terms. We'll see how that goes.

I disagree. Lack of crossover language and general film rights would be sufficient to allow for a crossover. I'd argue that in lieu of language prohibiting a crossover, doing so would be kosher, provided Fox possesses film rights for both franchises.

 

[Zarex]

A brief cameo is not sufficient to avoid reversion.

A brief cameo is not sufficient to extend the contract but a supporting role is? Are we sure about this?

I disagree. Lack of crossover language and general film rights would be sufficient to allow for a crossover. I'd argue that in lieu of language prohibiting a crossover, doing so would be kosher, provided Fox possesses film rights for both franchises.

So if no crossover language exists, your position is that FOX can merge two distinct licensing contracts without Marvel's permission? And FOX can unilaterally decide the terms without any input from the IP holder? Agree to disagree!

 

[Matt]

A brief cameo is not sufficient to extend the contract but a supporting role is? Are we sure about this?

I think so. Especially if it goes beyond supporting. FF vs X-Men is about both properties. Much as Batman v. Superman is about both characters.

So if no crossover language exists, your position is that FOX can merge two distinct licensing contracts without Marvel's permission? And FOX can unilaterally decide the terms without any input from the IP holder? Agree to disagree!

I think so. I think Fox could show years worth of cross over stories to establish that this is something Marvel could have reasonably expected when licensing out the GENERAL film rights and if they wanted to prohibit it, they could have built that into the contract.

Beyond that, Marvel's own actions cut against them. Fox can show that crossover films are now the industry norm for comic properties. Marvel does it, DC does it, Fox should be able to do it with general film rights of the characters they hold. It is nothing exceptional. It is how the characters are used on film. Thus, general film rights should cover it, in lieu of contractual language to the contrary.

Its how I'd argue it, anyway.

 

[Zarex]

I think so. I think Fox could show years worth of cross over stories to establish that this is something Marvel could have reasonably expected when licensing out the GENERAL film rights and if they wanted to prohibit it, they could have built that into the contract.

Beyond that, Marvel's own actions cut against them. Fox can show that crossover films are now the industry norm for comic properties. Marvel does it, DC does it, Fox should be able to do it with general film rights of the characters they hold. It is nothing exceptional. It is how the characters are used on film. Thus, general film rights should cover it, in lieu of contractual language to the contrary.

Its how I'd argue it, anyway.

I'd argue that a crossover violates the spirit of the original two distinct agreements, which were in no way intended to be merged. Combining the two agreements hinders Marvel's ability to license the FF and X-Men out separately if they should choose to do so at any time in the future, thus diminishing the value of the two separate character families.

I'd also argue that a crossover is a "new use" that was not bargained for in the original contracts. If FOX had any intention of crossing the two properties then Marvel should have been compensated for this use of the two separate character families. FOX needs to come back to the negotiating table and both parties need to determine the appropriate compensation to the IP holder for what we've seen can be a quite lucrative arrangement.

I'd then argue that Marvel and DC are owners. FOX is renting. Marvel and DC have crossover rights because they own the underlying IPs. FOX doesn't, and thus has to conform to the specifics of what was written in the original 1990s era agreements. If FOX wanted a different arrangement they should have paid for it.

See you in court!

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

 

[Matt]

I'd argue that a crossover violates the spirit of the original two distinct agreements, which were in no way intended to be merged. Combining the two agreements hinders Marvel's ability to license the FF and X-Men out separately if they should choose to do so at any time in the future, thus diminishing the value of the two separate character families.

I'd also argue that a crossover is a "new use" that was not bargained for in the original contracts. If FOX had any intention of crossing the two properties then Marvel should have been compensated for this use of the two separate character families. FOX needs to come back to the negotiating table and both parties need to determine the appropriate compensation to the IP holder for what we've seen can be a quite lucrative arrangement.

I'd then argue that Marvel and DC are owners. FOX is renting. Marvel and DC have crossover rights because they own the underlying IPs. FOX doesn't, and thus has to conform to the specifics of what was written in the original 1990s era agreements. If FOX wanted a different arrangement they should have paid for it.

See you in court!

If it does go there (and let's be honest, it won't), it would be helluva interesting. There really is no precedent for this, so it would basically come down to the whims of the Circuit that hears the case.

But that is just a lawyer's fantasy, I fear. My guess is we will ultimately see something similar to what happened with Spider-Man. Disney will pay Fox to get the rights back but Fox will get to continue to be a co-distributor/production company and get some of the film profits. Creative control will be ceded to Disney/Marvel, however.

Neither side is going to just sit on the characters. The comic movie bubble will burst eventually. No studio wants to leave money on the table and the window to make money off of these characters will close eventually. The studios will work something out in an attempt to make the characters profitable for all parties.

 

[Zarex]

If it does go there (and let's be honest, it won't), it would be helluva interesting. There really is no precedent for this, so it would basically come down to the whims of the Circuit that hears the case.

But that is just a lawyer's fantasy, I fear. My guess is we will ultimately see something similar to what happened with Spider-Man. Disney will pay Fox to get the rights back but Fox will get to continue to be a co-distributor/production company and get some of the film profits. Creative control will be ceded to Disney/Marvel, however.

Neither side is going to just sit on the characters. The comic movie bubble will burst eventually. No studio wants to leave money on the table and the window to make money off of these characters will close eventually. The studios will work something out in an attempt to make the characters profitable for all parties.

If FFINO had a performance similar to ROTSS, I could see Marvel cutting FOX on a piece of future FF movies. But Trank's film pretty much eliminated the threat of FOX ever investing in an FF film for the next decade. The FF are coming back to Marvel in 2022, so FOX will be motivated to get something for them now rather than get nothing later.

With senior FOX execs confirming that FOX is negotiating with Marvel for TV rights, I think this will be a relatively straightforward transaction. Marvel gets the FF free and clear and FOX gets approval for their X-Men tie in show. Marvel may also waive their licensing fee for both FFINO and the X-Men program to get the deal done. Easy, peezy, lemon squeazy.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

If it does go there (and let's be honest, it won't), it would be helluva interesting. There really is no precedent for this, so it would basically come down to the whims of the Circuit that hears the case.

The thing about a court battle is that Fox has FAR more to lose than Marvel. If Marvel loses, Fox can just go ahead with their crossover that they were going to do anyways. If Fox loses, both contracts could potentially be voided. Is it worth it to Fox to risk losing X-Men to cross them over with a universally reviled property? Absolutely not. To go ahead Fox would pretty much have to be 100% sure that they have the right to do it. If there is any question at all, it would be too risky.

I would argue it isn't worth crossing them over even if they were allowed. All the Fantastic Four will do is drag the X-Men down. The brand is poison and Fox is going to take a bath of possibly upwards of $100 million on this one film. Fox is fooling themselves if they think there is any more value out of the Fantastic Four than whatever scraps they can squeeze out of Marvel. They will just end up losing even more money. One of the most important rules of business is never throw good money after bad, and that is exactly what Fox would be doing.

 

[Matt]

If FFINO had a performance similar to ROTSS, I could see Marvel cutting FOX on a piece of future FF movies. But Trank's film pretty much eliminated the threat of FOX ever investing in an FF film for the next decade. The FF are coming back to Marvel in 2022, so FOX will be motivated to get something for them now rather than get nothing later.

With senior FOX execs confirming that FOX is negotiating with Marvel for TV rights, I think this will be a relatively straightforward transaction. Marvel gets the FF free and clear and FOX gets approval for their X-Men tie in show. Marvel may also waive their licensing fee for both FFINO and the X-Men program to get the deal done. Easy, peezy, lemon squeazy.

No way. Fox isn't stupid enough to let the property go all together (at least I should hope not). They know, that right now, Marvel is cinematic gold. I think they will hold out on the X-Men tie in show if it means getting a piece of that Marvel pie.

As for Marvel's incentive to cut them in:

1) Fox could always make another movie. It is a risky bet to just hope Fox lets the rights revert.

2) Timing is everything. The comic bubble will burst. 2022 may be too late to cash in on the characters to their fullest potential.

3) From Disney's perspective (and they are calling the shots on this, not Feige), having Fox willing to help finance FF (even just a tiny bit) reduces their risk. The brand is pretty toxic right now. More co-financiers means less risk, which is preferable.

4) It strengthens the relationship between Fox and Disney/Marvel. That can be valuable down the road (translation: when it comes to the X-Men). If they can establish a working relationship/agreement regarding F4, they can do it for X-Men. X-Men/Avengers crossover is the wet dream of both companies as it would be box office gold. It has potential for Titanic-esque numbers. In terms of the long game, this could be a stepping stone.

My point is, Fox isn't without a position to bargain and Disney isn't without incentive to cut them in. Thus, I see a deal similar to Sony's going down.

 

[Orba]

The big factor in Marvel's willingness to make a deal over Spider-Man is that they hold the merchandising and Spider-Man sells more than Batman and Superman combined. A good Spider-man film is great for merchandising which is good for Marvel. Without that big merchandising Marvel has far less incentive to make deals with Fox.

 

[marcvader]

Good discussion guys.

 

[Matt]

The thing about a court battle is that Fox has FAR more to lose than Marvel. If Marvel loses, Fox can just go ahead with their crossover that they were going to do anyways. If Fox loses, both contracts could potentially be voided. Is it worth it to Fox to risk losing X-Men to cross them over with a universally reviled property? Absolutely not. To go ahead Fox would pretty much have to be 100% sure that they have the right to do it. If there is any question at all, it would be too risky.

I would argue it isn't worth crossing them over even if they were allowed. All the Fantastic Four will do is drag the X-Men down. The brand is poison and Fox is going to take a bath of possibly upwards of $100 million on this one film. Fox is fooling themselves if they think there is any more value out of the Fantastic Four than whatever scraps they can squeeze out of Marvel. They will just end up losing even more money. One of the most important rules of business is never throw good money after bad, and that is exactly what Fox would be doing.

Nah, contracts wouldn't voided. Worst that happens is a crossover gets shut down.

That said, it would NEVER EVER EVER come to that. You mentioned that Fox has more to lose, which is probably true, just because Disney is...well...Disney. But with civil litigation, if it comes to that, there is never a winner (except the attorneys). Both parties would lose. Its why trial is dead. Its just too damn costly and the benefit never outweighs the cost.

IF Fox did move forward with a crossover and Marvel tried to block it, it would never go to trial or appeals court or anything like that. It would be settled by a mediator or arbitrator before a scheduling order was even out.

 

[TeeKay]

A Sony type deal isn't hapening. The FF arent Spider Man and given the toxic relationship between Marvel and Fox, its unlikely it will happen. The FF has been broken beyond repair now. Smh

 

[Matt]

A Sony type deal isn't hapening. The FF are joy Spider Man and given the toxic relationship between Marvel and Fox, its unlikely it will happen. The FF has been broken beyond repair now. Smh

Toxic relationships between corporations tend to be exaggerated. It is like politics. Why do you think Donald Trump and the Clintons are so close personally while Donald spews hatred at them publicly? Because it is a game. The relationship between Marvel and Fox is similar. There is no real ill will. Just corporate dick measuring. If a deal is profitable for both, they will cut a deal. Also, keep in mind, Disney, not Marvel, will ultimately make the call. Kevin Feige may hate Fox. Marvel may shut down an entire comic line to spite Fox. But if Disney sees profitability, they will jump on it.

 

[Zarex]

No way. Fox isn't stupid enough to let the property go all together (at least I should hope not). They know, that right now, Marvel is cinematic gold. I think they will hold out on the X-Men tie in show if it means getting a piece of that Marvel pie.

Why would Marvel give FOX a piece of that Marvel pie? They're not giving Sony a piece of that Marvel pie, and Spidey is a lot more valuable than the FF. And that TV show could put tens of millions of dollars into the Murdochs' pockets with streaming rights alone. FOX would be foolish to turn down that cash in order to hang onto a worthless property.

1) Fox could always make another movie. It is a risky bet to just hope Fox lets the rights revert.

If I were negotiating on behalf of Marvel I would be very comfortable taking that bet.

3) From Disney's perspective (and they are calling the shots on this, not Feige), having Fox willing to help finance FF (even just a tiny bit) reduces their risk. The brand is pretty toxic right now. More co-financiers means less risk, which is preferable.

From everything I have read, Ike Perlmutter, one of Disney's largest shareholders, has free reign to make decisions regarding his company. And I very much doubt that he wants FOX financing anything.

4) It strengthens the relationship between Fox and Disney/Marvel. That can be valuable down the road (translation: when it comes to the X-Men). If they can establish a working relationship/agreement regarding F4, they can do it for X-Men. X-Men/Avengers crossover is the wet dream of both companies as it would be box office gold. It has potential for Titanic-esque numbers. In terms of the long game, this could be a stepping stone.

X-Men/Avengers could be big. But its potential is no greater than a crossover with the Guardians, which right now is a more popular franchise than the X-Men. And Marvel has other teams - Inhumans, Defenders, perhaps the FF - that can crossover with the Avengers as well, without cutting FOX in on the BO.

The last two X-Men films had similar BO and critical acclaim to the last two Captain America solo films. They did well, but not well enough to warrant Marvel splitting the grosses with a rival studio. And with the X-Men franchise hurting for star attractions - Jackman's leaving and I'm not certain Gambit's going to get it done - I don't see a crossover between the Avengers mega franchise and the much less popular X-Men films happening unless Marvel gets a significant cut of the FOX productions.

 

[Tony Stark]

If the contracts are separate they cannot do a crossover, by design it's prohibited. It's no different than WB is not allowed to do a Harry Potter crossover with Batman, without permission of J.K. Rowling.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Actually, a Sony type deal would be beneficial for both companies and maybe lead to same type of deal for X-Men. Think of the possibility of an Avengers vs X-Men movie from a financial stand point? I don't think it is the most unlikely outcome.