Marvel should Pay off other studios for its licenses

[Docker2.0]

Believe me, I think Disney's lawyers will find away to have all of Marvel's properties under one roof within 10-15 years max. They may have to settle and pay a little something but I can guarantee that F4 reboot won't see the light of day under Fox. The only reason it was announced was because Disney bought Marvel and Fox had to say something to remain relevent concerning those rights. Why? I think because those rights are not perpetual as some people seem to think and Fox knows this which is why it's trying to make it look like they are working on a movie but all Mickey has to do is press the issue and have their lawyers dig deep and they will have most of them back under one roof.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I hope you are right Docker, but Marvel has made it clear (according to some sources) that they aren't chasing properties and they have no intention to do so. They still make decent side change from Fox and Sony as far as the big guns. That tells me they really don't have the best interests in mind for the character. I guess they feel they have tentpole material for the next 5-10 years with what they have as it is. But FF reboot can not happen under Fox under any circumstances. If there is not at least SOME legal action taken with that, I'll seriously contemplate ditching the studio in terms of giving them my business.

 

[E-Man]

Why should Marvel expensively pay off few of their licenses when they still have a hundred more? At best Marvel/Disney can only do 3 movies per year and outsourcing some of the lesser licenses will increase the number of Marvel movies per year.

Of course, Fox has too many on their hands (F4 and Daredevil should be given back to Disney) but renegotiating the deals so 1) each outsourced movies should have binding Marvel consultants and 2) Marvel/Disney + Sony + Fox can become more integrated to one another will count toward better Marvel movie-verse.

This. What people don't understand is that we get more movies with Marvel having their properties in other studios. Marvel Studios only has enough time and money to make 2 movies a year, and 3 movies if the year is really really good. If all the characters were under one roof, then we wouldn't see as many as we're getting now.

Look at what we're getting next year, and in 2012. We're getting Thor and Cap from Marvel, and X-Men: First Class. In 2012 we're getting the Spider-man reboot from Sony, and the Avengers movie. I'm not going gaga over First Class and the Spider-man reboot, but that's better than watching those characters rot on the shelf while we get nothing. I'd rather have a crappy movie than no movie at all.

Here is what is on Marvel Studios' plate.

2011- Thor and Captain America
2012- Avengers
2013- Iron Man 3 and maybe SHIELD or a Thor or Cap sequel if they do well
2014- Thor 2 or Cap 2 maybe
2015- Avengers 2 if the first is successful?
2016- SHIELD again? Another Iron Man sequel or spin-off? Avengers 3?
2017- What now? Smaller characters that fit in the Avengers or SHIELD?

I don't see where Marvel Studios has time to have a Spider-man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, etc. The focus Marvel has right now is on the Avengers, so I doubt that Marvel would make time for movies that don't have any relevancy to the Avengers like the X-Men. I'm pretty sure if they hammed in the Avengers, X-Men, and Spidey together, people would be *****ing non-stop about how they ruined the characters.

Marvel is gonna stick with what is successful in their studios, so we're probably gonna have Avengers related stuff for the next five years. If the movies are successful, then we'll get more sequels until they stop selling. If the movies flop, then Marvel is probably going to take their time before rebooting things again. Marvel having these characters in other studios gives us a chance to see more characters. We can get our Avengers, X-Men, Spider-man, and more with characters under different studios. That's why Marvel is more successful in the cinema area than DC. All DC characters are under one roof in WB, and I'm sure we wouldn't want Marvel characters suffering the same fate as the DC characters gathering dust right now.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Until Thor and Cap make bank... you can't pencil in sequels. And if Avengers is a critical disaster it will hurt its long term prospects as a viable franchise. And its only once every 3-4 years anyway. Other than IM3, they have no proven tentpoles after Avengers. Heck the FF reboot can happen under Marvel in 2013 or 2014 if Thor or Cap fail. If they stay at Fox or Sony, they can NEVER be properly re-integrated. Mutants will never be integrated into the Marvel universe. FF will need to be rebooted a second time before it can join the universe if Fox decides to give it a second chance.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Sure, they have hundred and hundreds of characters, but keep in minds the ones they don't have are some of Marvel's most popular characters.

I don't think they will get it now but Marvel/Disney will eventually want to get these licenses right now, especially if Spiderman becomes successful again. I don't any of the FOX licenses will become more valuable (and I don't think X-men can come back under FOX).

They will be hunting for these licenses and I believe that at least FOX will relinquish some rights for some of the Marvel films due to them being non-successful.

 

[SuperFerret]

Until Thor and Cap make bank... you can't pencil in sequels. And if Avengers is a critical disaster it will hurt its long term prospects as a viable franchise. And its only once every 3-4 years anyway. Other than IM3, they have no proven tentpoles after Avengers. Heck the FF reboot can happen under Marvel in 2013 or 2014 if Thor or Cap fail. If they stay at Fox or Sony, they can NEVER be properly re-integrated. Mutants will never be integrated into the Marvel universe. FF will need to be rebooted a second time before it can join the universe if Fox decides to give it a second chance.

I think you're looking too deeply into this. While it might be nice to see a Marvel Universe in the movies, these are just adaptions. The "real" Marvel U is and always will be in the comics, so stop worrying.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I could care less who does the movies as long as they are done right. But I do hate the fact that certain stories are eliminated or impossible because of properties tied up elsewhere. I don't need a cameo of some notable in every movie, but I do want the option available in almost every circumstance.

 

[E-Man]

Until Thor and Cap make bank... you can't pencil in sequels. And if Avengers is a critical disaster it will hurt its long term prospects as a viable franchise. And its only once every 3-4 years anyway. Other than IM3, they have no proven tentpoles after Avengers. Heck the FF reboot can happen under Marvel in 2013 or 2014 if Thor or Cap fail. If they stay at Fox or Sony, they can NEVER be properly re-integrated. Mutants will never be integrated into the Marvel universe. FF will need to be rebooted a second time before it can join the universe if Fox decides to give it a second chance.

Well, that was part of my point. With nothing being guaranteed, it makes no sense for Marvel to buy out all the properties. If Marvel flops after the Avengers, then we're right back to where we were in the 90s again. Having different properties in different studios gives us more of a chance to see movies.

 

[babykhris]

Here's what Marvel Owns

The Original 10 Properties Used To Create Marvel Studios

Ant-Man
The Avengers
Black Panther
Captain America
Cloak & Dagger
Doctor Strange
Hawkeye
Nick Fury
Power Pack
Shang-Chi

Marvel takes back rights to The Hulk from Universal Pictures in 2005

Marvel Gets Iron Man back from New Line Cinema in 2006

Thor was already at Paramount, then becomes a Marvel property.

Other properties confirmed to be owned by Marvel

Namor
Ka-Zar
Luke Cage
The Runaways
Deathlok
Iron Fist
Black Widow
Cable
Nighthawk
The Vision
Moon Knight
War Machine

 

[Captainhulk]

What makes me angry, is that Marvel did get back the rights to Spider-Man and then they sold it back to Sony in 2009. Marvel not having Spider-Man, is like DC not having Superman.

 

[FaT_tONle]

What makes me angry, is that Marvel did get back the rights to Spider-Man and then they sold it back to Sony in 2009. Marvel not having Spider-Man, is like DC not having Superman.

That's a bunch of bull. Maybe for the toon series or some ****, not movies.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Marvel renewed the Spider-Man rights with Sony for another three picture deal back in 2008/2009. They never got them back, but they still renewed them. This was before Disney bought Marvel and there was no real way to tell if Marvel Studios was going to be a success beyond the first Iron Man movie.

The question is, is it a deal where Sony has the right to renew perpetually (which they obviously will) before Marvel can take back the rights or is it a three picture deal that Disney has no intention on renewing.

Hell the reason why Sony scrapped Spider-Man 4 in favor of a reboot was because Spider-Man 4 was taking too long and they were afraid that Disney was going to come in and swoop the rights away.

 

[Timstuff]

In my mind, I will always imagine that Raimi's Spider-Man is part of the Marvel Movie-verse, even if Spider-Man does not officially exist in it. In terms of tone the first two Spidey movies felt like they'd fit right in with the same universe as the Marvel-produced movies, so I can just imagine that during all the Avengers craziness, Spider-Man is in Manhattan doing his thing, waiting for Nick Fury to show up on his doorstep... *sigh*

 

[S. Grundy]

This. What people don't understand is that we get more movies with Marvel having their properties in other studios. Marvel Studios only has enough time and money to make 2 movies a year, and 3 movies if the year is really really good. If all the characters were under one roof, then we wouldn't see as many as we're getting now.

Look at what we're getting next year, and in 2012. We're getting Thor and Cap from Marvel, and X-Men: First Class. In 2012 we're getting the Spider-man reboot from Sony, and the Avengers movie. I'm not going gaga over First Class and the Spider-man reboot, but that's better than watching those characters rot on the shelf while we get nothing. I'd rather have a crappy movie than no movie at all.

Here is what is on Marvel Studios' plate.

2011- Thor and Captain America
2012- Avengers
2013- Iron Man 3 and maybe SHIELD or a Thor or Cap sequel if they do well
2014- Thor 2 or Cap 2 maybe
2015- Avengers 2 if the first is successful?
2016- SHIELD again? Another Iron Man sequel or spin-off? Avengers 3?
2017- What now? Smaller characters that fit in the Avengers or SHIELD?

I don't see where Marvel Studios has time to have a Spider-man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, etc. The focus Marvel has right now is on the Avengers, so I doubt that Marvel would make time for movies that don't have any relevancy to the Avengers like the X-Men. I'm pretty sure if they hammed in the Avengers, X-Men, and Spidey together, people would be *****ing non-stop about how they ruined the characters.

Marvel is gonna stick with what is successful in their studios, so we're probably gonna have Avengers related stuff for the next five years. If the movies are successful, then we'll get more sequels until they stop selling. If the movies flop, then Marvel is probably going to take their time before rebooting things again. Marvel having these characters in other studios gives us a chance to see more characters. We can get our Avengers, X-Men, Spider-man, and more with characters under different studios. That's why Marvel is more successful in the cinema area than DC. All DC characters are under one roof in WB, and I'm sure we wouldn't want Marvel characters suffering the same fate as the DC characters gathering dust right now.

Actually, Marvel has said that they plan to do smaller films with the lesser known characters like Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Ant Man etc.... after the Avengers.

In my mind, I will always imagine that Raimi's Spider-Man is part of the Marvel Movie-verse, even if Spider-Man does not officially exist in it. In terms of tone the first two Spidey movies felt like they'd fit right in with the same universe as the Marvel-produced movies, so I can just imagine that during all the Avengers craziness, Spider-Man is in Manhattan doing his thing, waiting for Nick Fury to show up on his doorstep... *sigh*

Yeah, especially the moment in Iron Man 2 where Vanko first suits up and he's got the same spinal device as Doc Ock.

Also, I'm more able to believe that the 2004 Punisher film takes place in the Marvel movie universe, than Punisher: War Zone.

 

[Docker2.0]

Marvel renewed the Spider-Man rights with Sony for another three picture deal back in 2008/2009. They never got them back, but they still renewed them. This was before Disney bought Marvel and there was no real way to tell if Marvel Studios was going to be a success beyond the first Iron Man movie.

The question is, is it a deal where Sony has the right to renew perpetually (which they obviously will) before Marvel can take back the rights or is it a three picture deal that Disney has no intention on renewing.

Hell the reason why Sony scrapped Spider-Man 4 in favor of a reboot was because Spider-Man 4 was taking too long and they were afraid that Disney was going to come in and swoop the rights away.

Which is why I'm sure that Sony rights to Spidey are not indefinate, just like Fox's rights to the F4. As long as Fox makes F4 movies within a certain time, the retain the rights. Marvel just renewed the movie rights to Sony for 3 more movies, so what's going to happen the next time it comes up? Mickey's boys will step in and make sure they go back to the house of mouse.

 

[OB12]

What we are really talking about and what we, as fans, really want is for Marvel to have creative control over their properties. It would be nice if Marvel Studios were producing Spider-man or FF, but ultimately it doesn't matter who the producer is as long as the properties are treated correctly. It may just take the threat of action by Disney to make Sony and Fox cooperate. I mean, it is a good point that there are really too many properties for Marvel Studios to handle by themselves, they wouldn't be able to put out 3-4 tentpoles a year. Disney should threaten to press the issue on the rights but really just want more creative control. The ability to incorporate the movies into the bigger MCU is really a win for all parties involved.

Sony and Fox would keep the bigger profits as producing studios, which would be increased by the hype of inclusion into the MCU, Marvel would see their properties continue to be put into theaters instead of waiting in the pipeline at their own studio, and the fans would get better treatment of the characters. Ideally, all of the properties would be under Marvel, but in the absence of that I would be fine if Disney flexed its muscle to exert greater creative control at the very least.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Marvel renewed the Spider-Man rights with Sony for another three picture deal back in 2008/2009. They never got them back, but they still renewed them. This was before Disney bought Marvel and there was no real way to tell if Marvel Studios was going to be a success beyond the first Iron Man movie.

The question is, is it a deal where Sony has the right to renew perpetually (which they obviously will) before Marvel can take back the rights or is it a three picture deal that Disney has no intention on renewing.

Hell the reason why Sony scrapped Spider-Man 4 in favor of a reboot was because Spider-Man 4 was taking too long and they were afraid that Disney was going to come in and swoop the rights away.

The reboot was scheduled a year later, so I doubt that's the reason SM4 was scrapped. I am guessing they had around a 5-6 year window. It made sense for Marvel to renew three more movies because they were doing Avengers stuff. No way it goes past SM6. Sony may not even complete another trilogy.

Actually, Marvel has said that they plan to do smaller films with the lesser known characters like Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Ant Man etc.... after the Avengers.

Yeah, especially the moment in Iron Man 2 where Vanko first suits up and he's got the same spinal device as Doc Ock.

Also, I'm more able to believe that the 2004 Punisher film takes place in the Marvel movie universe, than Punisher: War Zone.

What's next? X-Men is in the same universe as well??? The movies don't co-exist. Yeah so maybe Spidey was doing his thing in Manhattan at the time of Avengers, but that doesn't mean Raimi's franchise, or Webb's take is going to co-exist with any such things. Unless you just want to use your imagination. My guess is that Marvel will ignore everything from previous movies once they get the rights back. If they decide they want to include Spidey/FF/X-Men into their universe, it will probably be some alternate reality/universe that is different than the one we see now. I don't see how mutants will ever be able to realistically integrate into the current MCU.

 

[roach]

Actually that is the reason....for the Spidey reboot. The movie fell aprat and Raimi and cast left. When Marvel was bought by Disney everyone with a Marvel property announced reboots for fear of the Mouse Lawyers hitting hard to get the rights back.

I dont see Marvel getting the rights back or pursuing them. They are making free money off the properties being at other studios and as was mentioned they arent big enough to handle, Avengers, Spider-man, X-men at the same time

How is it impossible for mutants to be in the MCU but gods and aliens to be???

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Ah, thanks for the information guys. I didn't know that the series was renewed in 2008. It makes sense for Marvel to renew at the time. It was before Iron Man was a hit and didn't know if they would be able to succeed as a film studio. Now we know, and when the time comes for Spiderman, X-Men, and other franchises to revert back to Marvel, Marvel studios will be ready for it.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Actually that is the reason....for the Spidey reboot. The movie fell aprat and Raimi and cast left. When Marvel was bought by Disney everyone with a Marvel property announced reboots for fear of the Mouse Lawyers hitting hard to get the rights back.

His point was SM4 was taking too long and they were worried about losing rights. They probably could have postponed it another year and released it in 2012, but with the tension with Raimi and a five year gap, they figured they were better off rebooting. Sony was always going to have something out by 2012 or shortly thereafter once the deal was renewed before the Disney move.

I dont see Marvel getting the rights back or pursuing them. They are making free money off the properties being at other studios and as was mentioned they arent big enough to handle, Avengers, Spider-man, X-men at the same time

How is it impossible for mutants to be in the MCU but gods and aliens to be???

It's greed and nothing more. Fans are happy because they will see more Marvel movies... well some fans. Marvel is simply out for a quick buck if that's the case and it shows they have no interest in the well being of some of their major characters.

 

[roach]

I dont know if I would call it greed. They are a fledgling movie studio. Of the three movies they have made(TIH,IM and IM2) only two were wildly popular. Having Spider-man and company at other studios ensures they have income coming in without spending money. Does it suck that they dont have those characters...hell yeah but they have to put the well being of the company ahead of the characters

 

[FaT_tONle]

I can understand leaving Spidey where its at because it makes good money and they can still make a good profit from nothing. But for the characters that are going nowhere, GR, Punisher, DD, FF, Marvel has no use for them? DD and FF will be completely worthless by the time they come back in house, and Marvel will have never exercised their true potential.

 

[roach]

There are supposed to be reboots of GR,DD and FF. As long as those properties are at other studios...those studios have to pay Marvel. Marvel may want a more faithful adaptation of FF but as long as Fox pays for the rights its their baby. Its kind of like paying rent

 

[FaT_tONle]

There are supposed to be reboots of GR,DD and FF. As long as those properties are at other studios...those studios have to pay Marvel. Marvel may want a more faithful adaptation of FF but as long as Fox pays for the rights its their baby. Its kind of like paying rent

And you don't believe it's greedy, or lazy, to avoid taking back those properties and adapting them properly rather than leaving them to studios that will inevitably mail it in just to max out whatever money they can get from them?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

There not just avoiding it just because of free money. No doubt its part of it, but its a relatively small part of it. Their also avoiding it because those contracts are pretty strong and it would prove to be incredibly difficult to get those rights back. From what I heard Disney already looked into them and saw that those contracts were pretty strong. I bet that's one of the first things Disney did.

Plus, Marvel's making money without them so what's the rush. If they were in financial trouble I can see them trying to go after the rights but they don't. Marvel Studios has proven successful without those films.

Its not greedy or lazy. They do want those rights back, but it would cost them at this point.