Kang the Conquerer NOT owned by Marvel

[sleekstereo]

We don't know what the issues are, we just know they exist. From Sony hack info, we've even heard that Fox isn't actually using a Marvel Executive Producer with their upcoming films, they're just using a contractually mandated in name only producer (Stan Lee, iirc). Even TASM franchise utilized Marvel on some level. Feige even tried to provide some advice for TASM2 reshoots and editing (he warned them about that godawful Rhino, for example).

It seems like they are working directly with the comicbook writers than Marvel.

Rob Liefeld is working with production team of Deadpool, and Chris Claremont wrote the treatment for Gambit. Wouldn't be surprised if he becomes involved with New Mutants too.

 

[Zarex]

Was the biggest issue merchandise? Fox wants merchandise or a bigger cut of it?

A recent article on IO9 semi-confirmed that Marvel and FOX were negotiating for the release of the FF rights very late in the process before talks broke down. FOX started filming the cheap rights grab known as FFINO and Ike Perlmutter went on a rampage.

Negotiations are likely on hold until the FF reboot hits the theaters. Ike is flexing his muscles, letting FOX know that he will take a scorched earth policy regarding his properties unless he gets his characters back. Apocalypse will be okay, but Gambit and New Mutants need all the help they can get.

My guess is ultimately FOX will get their X-Men TV show and Marvel will end up with the FF character family. But it might get ugly for a while.

 

[Eddie]

Guess they have to adjust that to show Universal still has Hulk too.

Eh, Uni just has distro on solo films. Marvel has used Hulk characters in several films with no Universal involvement, one of their short films was centered around Hulk characters and their role (or lack of role) in the Avengers Initiative, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has used some Hulk stuff. Hulks pretty much locked up at Marvel. I seriously doubt we'd have had a Phase 2 or 3 Hulk solo anyway.

 

[Eddie]

It seems like they are working directly with the comicbook writers than Marvel.

Rob Liefeld is working with production team of Deadpool, and Chris Claremont wrote the treatment for Gambit. Wouldn't be surprised if he becomes involved with New Mutants too.

That's exactly what they're doing. At least one comic artist did some work on Fant4stic, and at least one writer did a set visit. They're pretty much all freelance though.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

That's the thing between the two: Aquaman is a noble hero while Namor is just a milf spunking anti-hero

True. I feel like Namor is more of an anti-hero and often an outright villain. He's also VERY sexualized so we have a womanizing villain which isn't like Aquaman at all.

I strongly disagree. I think Namor, done correctly, can easily co-exist with Aquaman.

The Marvel formula still hasn't accepted not making a hero redeeming. They fought Wright over Ant-man's thievery until they decided to reshoot it later. Going full on anti-hero solo still isn't in their wheelhouse.

Just visually, the undersea ruler meme will be Aquaman's by then.

 

[Slushy]

So much for him being in Guardians 2. UGH!

 

[harryoscop]

I really want the Fantastic Four back at Marvel in the MCU, X-Men can stay in their own universe at Fox.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

The Marvel formula still hasn't accepted not making a hero redeeming. They fought Wright over Ant-man's thievery until they decided to reshoot it later. Going full on anti-hero solo still isn't in their wheelhouse.

Just visually, the undersea ruler meme will be Aquaman's by then.

I dunno. There was a recent interview with Peyton Reed where he said he wanted to explore the darker side of Hank Pym and that it was a key departure from the Edgar Wright script. Color me intrigued.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

It isn't Fox's fault that they bought the rights to these characters. It IS Fox's fault that they are wasting most of these characters and that 6 out of their 11 Marvel films are widely regarded as the bottom of the barrel for the genre. If Fox was making great movies with these characters people wouldn't be complaining, but when over half their movies are absolute crap you can be sure fans aren't going to be silent about it.

This.

 

[Balerathon]

Ack! Noooo

Hopefully they'll sit on it long enough to notice it's unprofitable and sell the rights off!

 

[Mike Murdock]

Far be it for me to take the position of Fox's defense, but why exactly is it their fault that Marvel sold them the rights?

It's not their fault they have the characters. It is their fault when they use them poorly or, more importantly, don't use them at all.

 

[Eddie]

That probably isn't Emma on that poster, btw. The company that released it confirmed that Marvel said no on using X-Men and FF characters. If it is Emma, they screwed up.

 

[Flint Marko]

It's not their fault they have the characters. It is their fault when they use them poorly or, more importantly, don't use them at all.

A few years back, Fox let the Daredevil rights lapse back to Marvel. They had a movie in pre-production with Joe Carnahan attached, and they approached Marvel to see if they could strike a deal. Marvel said, "You can keep Daredevil, but give us Silver Surfer and Galactus". Fox, like a petulant child, said no and chose to let their DD adaption go belly up. At the end of the day I'm glad they did because Daredevil is probably the best thing Marvel has ever produced, but what chaps my ass is that Fox is never, ever, ever going to use the Silver Surfer or Galactus again. You can argue otherwise, but have fun convincing me a giant purple guy and a silver dude on a surfboard are going to fit into the FFINO's "lo-fi, gritty" approach. They chickened out on properly adapting those two in their previous franchise which was noted for it's campy, cartoonish nature, so why would they try it again?
Kang unfortunately falls into this camp as well. I will be shocked and amazed if any of these characters are ever used, and if they are, they sure as hell won't be done correctly.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

A few years back, Fox let the Daredevil rights lapse back to Marvel. They had a movie in pre-production with Joe Carnahan attached, and they approached Marvel to see if they could strike a deal. Marvel said, "You can keep Daredevil, but give us Silver Surfer and Galactus". Fox, like a petulant child, said no and chose to let their DD adaption go belly up. At the end of the day I'm glad they did because Daredevil is probably the best thing Marvel has ever produced, but what chaps my ass is that Fox is never, ever, ever going to use the Silver Surfer or Galactus again. You can argue otherwise, but have fun convincing me a giant purple guy and a silver dude on a surfboard are going to fit into the FFINO's "lo-fi, gritty" approach. They chickened out on properly adapting those two in their previous franchise which was noted for it's campy, cartoonish nature, so why would they try it again?
Kang unfortunately falls into this camp as well. I will be shocked and amazed if any of these characters are ever used, and if they are, they sure as hell won't be done correctly.

I'm totally with you on this. The Fanfourstick reboot will have to be a shockingly amazing film for me to reverse my opinion of Fox playing keep away with Marvel characters that they don't seem to know how to use.

 

[Farren]

This one is a real bummer. Fox isn't going to do anything with Kang, and even if they do, he's going to get treated like Doom because Fox clearly won't be willing to embrace these sort of villains. I'm not that bitter about other studios owning some of these characters (I actually rather like the X-men being elsewhere because they usually function as their own internal universe anyway), but I don't see anyone but Marvel doing Kang justice.

I agree. With the news about Kang it's apparent Fox owns a bigger piece of the Marvel pie than we ever suspected. Thank goodness Marvel and Sony were able to work things out. I'm definitely suspicious about the arrangement but I think in the end it will be great for fans.

Agreed. And it just goes to show how pretty close to impossible it's going to be to guess what they do or don't have now. Wanda and Pietro are shared but Kang is with Fox? It seems so inconsistent.

 

[starscream22]

True. I feel like Namor is more of an anti-hero and often an outright villain. He's also VERY sexualized so we have a womanizing villain which isn't like Aquaman at all.

Yeah to me Namor and Black Adam were more alike personality wise. All Namor and Aquaman really have in common is water.

 

[DrCosmic]

Yeah to me Namor and Black Adam were more alike personality wise. All Namor and Aquaman really have in common is water.

And being Kings of Atlantis, and losing and regaining said regency, and being children of a sea captain and an Atlantean princess, and generally being golden age characters that have stood the test of time, even though their costumes have not.

The only thing really different about them is their personality, and even then, the New 52 Aquaman is on everything Namor has ever been on.

 

[Aztec]

http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/m...-assemble-disney-xd-orders-new-seasons-36996/

Oddly enough it seems that next season's Avengers Assemble will have Kang in it. Despite the fact the show has been/ and will be extremely MCU heavy.

 

[Eddie]

It'd be great if Gunn simply screwed up/Kang is shared, but the animated stuff has been featuring small cameos and guest appearances from Fox film rights characters. The Disk Wars anime in particular featured quite a few X-Men.

 

[Flint Marko]

We're going to have two different Batman's within four years of each other and two different Spider-man's within maybe two. And both of those movies are all but guaranteed to be billion dollar hits. I think the general public could accept two different aquatic-themed characters.

 

[Dasher10]

We're going to have two different Batman's within four years of each other and two different Spider-man's within maybe two. And both of those movies are all but guaranteed to be billion dollar hits. I think the general public could accept two different aquatic-themed characters.

Considering that one is willing to come to the surface world to broker peace and joins with the Justice League because they share goals and the other is out for revenge against the surface world for polluting his waters and overfishing, then only caves in and joins the Avengers because Attuma is a bigger threat despite being an old friend of Captain America and Winter Soldier, I'd call that a pretty big difference.

Also, Aquaman is bulletproof, wields a trident and commands the creatures of the deep, Namor is a glass canon who can project jets of water and fly. They're different enough. Plus, Namor was Marvel's first character ever. They cannot let DC walk all over their turf.

Most of these rights are on a ten year timer. I hope that Fox and Marvel will agree to use an event film to merge universes but in the meantime, Marvel is going to wind up getting Hulk and Namor back in 2018 which is a VERY good thing. We're overdue for a Hulk sequel and Namor should be introduced as an Avengers villain before getting a spin-off film of his own.

 

[Aztec]

Most of these rights are on a ten year timer. I hope that Fox and Marvel will agree to use an event film to merge universes but in the meantime, Marvel is going to wind up getting Hulk and Namor back in 2018 which is a VERY good thing. We're overdue for a Hulk sequel and Namor should be introduced as an Avengers villain before getting a spin-off film of his own.

Again, source? You keep making bold claims with no evidence.

It's simply not true that "most of these deals are on a 10 year timer". I know Daredevil and Fantastic Four were 7, Spider-Man is on 3, etc.

 

[Zarex]

Again, source? You keep making bold claims with no evidence.

It's simply not true that "most of these deals are on a 10 year timer". I know Daredevil and Fantastic Four were 7, Spider-Man is on 3, etc.

I believe that all of the deals originally had a five year reversion date, but the FOX agreements (X-Men, FF, DD) were all pushed to 7 years as part of the Mutant X settlement. Please don't ask for citation. I remember reading it and I think it makes sense.

I believe that Spidey was still on the five year plan, which was the time that passed between SM3 and ASM. It could be that the three year period is the time between the airing of the last film and the commencement of the follow up production. As long as the Marvel/Sony deal holds the reversion date is suspended.

 

[Eddie]

I believe that all of the deals originally had a five year reversion date, but the FOX agreements (X-Men, FF, DD) were all pushed to 7 years as part of the Mutant X settlement. Please don't ask for citation. I remember reading it and I think it makes sense.

I believe that Spidey was still on the five year plan, which was the time that passed between SM3 and ASM. It could be that the three year period is the time between the airing of the last film and the commencement of the follow up production. As long as the Marvel/Sony deal holds the reversion date is suspended.

IIRC, Sony hack data actually insinuated that they have a three year, nine month clock. That could be why Marvel got TV and merch back in between 3 and TASM. It could have been part of an extension deal.

 

[starscream22]

It's not their fault they have the characters. It is their fault when they use them poorly or, more importantly, don't use them at all.

I could see Marvel making some great Crossover arc that includes Kang, then Fox jumping on the band wagon reaping most of the rewards for him.

Disney is smart for seeing this for the foolishness that it is. So whether you like Fox's crap or not, no one with real business sense can fault Marvel-Disney for collectively shutting Fox out.