Should Marvel Get The Rights Back To All It's Characters?

[RoryTate]

No thought required: get all the rights back. They have shown what an overall plan for the movies can do with how everything came together so well in Avengers, which on its own was a good movie, but in the context of the other movies was an unparalleled cinematic achievement.

I can't see X-Men having written themselves into such a corner under a better vision. And Fantastic Four wouldn't have drifted off into la-la land somewhere either. Marvel -- back when they were just focused on comics -- got very good at planning and coordinating across multiple titles, and they have brought that experience to the movies, which is great.

More revenue from the different franchises would mean more staff and a larger studio, so I don't agree that this would mean there's no time for X-Men or FF movies. I think we would have more X-Men movies (and better ones too!) by this point if Marvel had kept the rights. Not sure what they would have done with FF to be honest, as I was never really a fan, so I don't know what their popularity is relative to the other franchises.

 

[Loki882]

The X-Men haven't written themselves into a corner at all. In fact, the film series has never been stronger. Marvel phase two movies have been rather disappointing, so they're not infallible. If Marvel were to get the rights back, it would be all Avengers, X-Men, and Spider Man all the time. We wouldn't be getting the lesser-known but interesting properties that we are getting.

 

[RoryTate]

Many say that Guardians is being done because Feige really wants to do it, so that directly contradicts your assertion that it would be Avengers, X-Men and Spider Man only. And remember, while Guardians looks interesting, its true value remains to be seen because it hasn't come out yet. What are these lesser-known properties that have been good as far as Marvel movies are concerned? They all seem to be in the future.

The X-Men haven't written themselves into a corner at all. In fact, the film series has never been stronger.

The strength of the film franchise you reference is because you are anticipating the return of Brian Singer, Ian Mckellan and Patrick Stewart, instead of anticipating the next story resulting from the previous movie(s). Most people I've talked to are simply hopeful it will reset the Professor X, Cyclops, and Jean Grey deaths, and the Rogue and Beast loss of powers, with the "changing the timeline" plot of the DOFP story. That is directly because the movies have written themselves into a corner. With DOFP's release, the last three X-Men films will have been reboots to a large extent:

X-Men: First Class - prequel with new actors in major roles, and all other mutant characters barely known
The Wolverine - a character story without any connection to the other movies, except for the after credits scene appearing to resurrect Prof X (and that is the part that everyone is talking about)
X-Men: Days of Future Past - the core plot is to change the timeline, and although it remains to be seen how far that will go, I'm pretty certain that it will have to change several things from The Last Stand just to even get off the ground

 

[Lord]

The Wolverine also had a lot of aftermath from X-Men 3, Jean Gray appeared multiple times, and then there are also the bone claws, Mikaela (was that her name?) also makes a cameo in his dreams

 

[kaijunexus]

Nothings been stopping them. There isn't a rule that says there can only be four movies a year and if Fox/Sony is doing two then theres only two spots left for Disney Marvel.

They can do what they want, and it's clear they don't want to do more than two a year, by choice.

No, it's not a rule. But it is common sense. Market over-saturation is major concern for all of these studios. It's an extremely delicate balance, and they want to maintain it for as long as possible in order to make as much many as they can.

Too few films and they aren't maximizing their profits. Too many films and audiences get tired of the genre and potential future profits are lost.

At the moment, it seems that 3 to 4 Marvel films a year is working fairly well. Despite these studios being in partial competition with each other, they seem to be sticking to this formula in unison because it makes sense.

If Sony or Fox were to pull out, the sensibilities behind this saturation balance formula don't change. Again, it's about maximizing profits. Marvel Studios would fill the gap left by the other studio(s) because there's money to be made there.

 

[DrCosmic]

If Sony or Fox were to pull out, the sensibilities behind this saturation balance formula don't change. Again, it's about maximizing profits. Marvel Studios would fill the gap left by the other studio(s) because there's money to be made there.

I agree with you completely until this last point. If Sony didn't have Spider-Man they'd simply get another blockbuster action adventure property to adapt, and that would then be in competition with Marvel. There is no way to clear the runway and let Marvel exist without competition from the bigger studios. There is no reality where Fox/Sony/WB exist and Marvel Studios gets to make four successful superhero films a year.

 

[Chance Jackson]

No if anything I think Marvel Studios should sell the live action rights to more of their properties. Marvel Studios should take any property with less than an 80% chance to be used significantly in a movie, tv/web show within the next 10 years and lease them out. Especially female and minority characters that marvel is likely not to do too much with.

Many forget that the first successful movie based on a marvel property was "Blade" and that pretty much kicked off this era of CBMs. If marvel had all the live action rights to it's comic book properties back then we probably would have never ever gotten a Blade movie to begin with. Way things are going now we would be lucky to see Blade in a movie in 20 years but if he stayed with the studio that made him popular they might have rebooted the series by now(now that vamps are popular)

 

[Dr. Evil]

No if anything I think Marvel Studios should sell the live action rights to more of their properties. Marvel Studios should take any property with less than an 80% chance to be used significantly in a movie, tv/web show within the next 10 years and lease them out. Especially female and minority characters that marvel is likely not to do too much with.

Many forget that the first successful movie based on a marvel property was "Blade" and that pretty much kicked off this era of CBMs. If marvel had all the live action rights to it's comic book properties back then we probably would have never ever gotten a Blade movie to begin with. Way things are going now we would be lucky to see Blade in a movie in 20 years but if he stayed with the studio that made him popular they might have rebooted the series by now(now that vamps are popular)

Black Panther is more likely than Blade.

 

[babykhris]

No if anything I think Marvel Studios should sell the live action rights to more of their properties. Marvel Studios should take any property with less than an 80% chance to be used significantly in a movie, tv/web show within the next 10 years and lease them out. Especially female and minority characters that marvel is likely not to do too much with.

Many forget that the first successful movie based on a marvel property was "Blade" and that pretty much kicked off this era of CBMs. If marvel had all the live action rights to it's comic book properties back then we probably would have never ever gotten a Blade movie to begin with. Way things are going now we would be lucky to see Blade in a movie in 20 years but if he stayed with the studio that made him popular they might have rebooted the series by now(now that vamps are popular)

Why would Marvel or any big corporation sell off stakes in their rights now? Since Disney bought Marvel they been focusing on getting rights back.

Not everything needs to be live action we have a thing called Marvel Animation.

Now regarding Blade. He was at New Line, which WB owns. Imagine the DC fans who would say they can make a Marvel character film, but can't give us Wonder Woman.

Too many Marvel films dillute the brand. Look at the Ghost Riders, the Elektras, the FF, the Punishers. Whats to guarantee those studios can do it better???

 

[Loki882]

Many say that Guardians is being done because Feige really wants to do it, so that directly contradicts your assertion that it would be Avengers, X-Men and Spider Man only. And remember, while Guardians looks interesting, its true value remains to be seen because it hasn't come out yet. What are these lesser-known properties that have been good as far as Marvel movies are concerned? They all seem to be in the future.



The strength of the film franchise you reference is because you are anticipating the return of Brian Singer, Ian Mckellan and Patrick Stewart, instead of anticipating the next story resulting from the previous movie(s). Most people I've talked to are simply hopeful it will reset the Professor X, Cyclops, and Jean Grey deaths, and the Rogue and Beast loss of powers, with the "changing the timeline" plot of the DOFP story. That is directly because the movies have written themselves into a corner. With DOFP's release, the last three X-Men films will have been reboots to a large extent:

X-Men: First Class - prequel with new actors in major roles, and all other mutant characters barely known
The Wolverine - a character story without any connection to the other movies, except for the after credits scene appearing to resurrect Prof X (and that is the part that everyone is talking about)
X-Men: Days of Future Past - the core plot is to change the timeline, and although it remains to be seen how far that will go, I'm pretty certain that it will have to change several things from The Last Stand just to even get off the ground

And guess what, Marvel can't make Spider Man or X-Men movies at the moment, so you're argument is irrelevant. If they could make those other films, would we still be getting GOTG? Maybe, but I'm not at all sure.

 

[Hypestyle]

If Marvel had greater creative control and profit participation, I'd say keep the licensing going with Fox and Columbia. But in the long term, Disney will need to reassert control.

 

[Chance Jackson]

Why would Marvel or any big corporation sell off stakes in their rights now? Since Disney bought Marvel they been focusing on getting rights back.

Sure but it's hoarding at this point

Not everything needs to be live action we have a thing called Marvel Animation.

LA rights and Animation rights are generally separate but both had been sold before

Now regarding Blade. He was at New Line, which WB owns. Imagine the DC fans who would say they can make a Marvel character film, but can't give us Wonder Woman.

I thought Blade was at New Line never knew WB owned it though did New Line get bought after Blade became a hit?

Too many Marvel films dillute the brand.

The individual properties sure but if the properties won't be used anyways it doesn't really matter

Look at the Ghost Riders, the Elektras, the FF, the Punishers. Whats to guarantee those studios can do it better???

There no guarantees one way or the other aside from the near guarantee that those studios would at least try to make those I.P.s count while marvel is more or less content with focusing on its "safest" properties

And guess what, Marvel can't make Spider Man or X-Men movies at the moment, so you're argument is irrelevant. If they could make those other films, would we still be getting GOTG? Maybe, but I'm not at all sure.

I doubt it unless Marvel branded Space Opera was a priority

Black Panther is more likely than Blade.

True but if Disney Could Do Spider-man, FF, X-men and spinoffs of those 3 would they even toy with the idea of a BP solo flick? I doubt it; Look at Blade he isn't even on their radar and he is a proven money maker even when it started as an almost totally unknown property. Hell the first time I had heard of Blade was when he appeared hunting Morbius on the 90s Spider-man cartoon(cross promotion or total coincidence? you decide) if New Line can take a chance on him and lay all the ground work Disney should be able to take the ball and run with it.

 

[samsnee]

No. X-men works better in its own universe. And as cool as it would be to see Spider-man next to Cap, I think his story works better if he's the only superhero in his world.

 

[Dr Tactics]

No. X-men works better in its own universe.

Yep Agree

And as cool as it would be to see Spider-man next to Cap, I think his story works better if he's the only superhero in his world.

I disagree.. Spider-Man can exist in the same universe but still have his own adventures like in the CB's. The last two Marvel movies showed that you can have your own adventures while sharing the same universe. Spider-Man can benefit better in the MCU then in the SCU.

 

[BatsDC]

Should they? Yes.

Do they need to? No.

 

[KangConquers]

Should they? Yes.

Do they need to? No.

Thread closed.

 

[MarvelFan]

just as good as Fox's Marvel and Sony's Spider-Man are, I just curious how Marvel Studios make their version of X-Men, Fantastic Four, and Spider-Man ...

I think Ryan Meinerding & Charlie Wen could make an awesome design especially for X-Men characters.

so, I'd prefer all MARVEL characters back to their own parent.

 

[DrCosmic]

I'd rather have more Marvel movies. I'm much more curious about how Marvel will handle Black Panther, Inhumans, Captain Marvel and Dr. Strange than how they would re (or re-re) do Spidey, FF and X-Men.

Edit: And I'm much more curious how Fox will handle X-Force, Deadpool, and Wolverine solos and how Sony will handle a Spider-Man Universe, so to speak with Venom and Scarlet Spider and Spider-Girl spinoffs, or whatever they're going to do. That will be so very interesting, much more than just seeing Spider-Man again, but with a SHIELD cameo.

 

[smashmode]

Saw something somewhere that Marvel has Cable (message board chatter)? Something about they split out Cable property out of the X-men property but no one ever took it. Is this true?

 

[Chance Jackson]

Saw something somewhere that Marvel has Cable (message board chatter)? Something about they split out Cable property out of the X-men property but no one ever took it. Is this true?

Doubt it. Fox successfully sued Marvel over the TV Show "Mutant X" because Marvel deliberately promoted it in bad faith as connected to the X-Men I.P. which Fox has exclusive Live Action rights to

 

[Doc Ock]

I voted yes but I feel at the moment Sony and Fox are doing a good job. Fox is fixing mistakes IMO and Sony is playing it right. I'd love to see all the Marvel characters in the same universe but if these two studios keep doing a good job than I don't mind waiting another decade or more before Marvel gets the rights back. But Marvel needs the FF rights ASAP!

 

[metaphysician]

Doubt it. Fox successfully sued Marvel over the TV Show "Mutant X" because Marvel deliberately promoted it in bad faith as connected to the X-Men I.P. which Fox has exclusive Live Action rights to

I don't know, I heard the same rumor. The lawsuit doesn't necessarily mean anything, as one, Mutant X kind of *was* an X-Men show with the serial number filed off ( as opposed to an adaptation of a specific license they controlled ), and two, at the time, Fox was much bigger than Marvel and could bully them.

That said, it always did seem kind of inexplicable, so who knows.

 

[kedrell]

Until the X-Men go back to Marvel, I'll always have a difficult time staying interested in the X-Men film franchise. The whole aspect of mutants as a key pillar of Marvel U lore and such is to me the most interesting thing about the X-men. And you can't have that if they're in a separate universe. I like how their existence also informs us about other non-mutant heroes like the FF, Spidey, Hulk, DD, etc.

 

[Zarex]

Doubt it. Fox successfully sued Marvel over the TV Show "Mutant X" because Marvel deliberately promoted it in bad faith as connected to the X-Men I.P. which Fox has exclusive Live Action rights to

FOX sued Marvel, but not successfully. Marvel won the initial court case, which FOX subsequently appealed. Both parties later settled out of court.

 

[kedrell]

And Marvel was a pipsqueak at the time. Not so much now.