Should Marvel still consider Licensing Out Certain Characters To Other Studios?

[Yowza]

I am guessing pretty much all of you will give a definitive no to this. However, there are some reasons where I think this may be worth considering.

Budgetary: After reading through a thread concerning more rumored Netflix shows and the budgetary concerns certain characters like Ghost Rider had this got me wondering if licensing out certain characters may be the only option to give them the budget they need. Not only would this perhaps help the character in question but also give more money to Marvel studios to do their own thing without taking on all the risk.

Tonality or issues meshing into the MCU: Besides certain characters not being able to be done within a smaller budget perhaps there are other characters who deserve their own franchises but are better off being left alone unconnected to the MCU? A lot of the horror characters or characters in an alternate universe such as Squadron Supreme come to mind for me. I would've perhaps said the same about the street level characters but the Netflix shows have been able to allude to the greater MCU while still maintaining their own atmosphere and story bubble. However, perhaps there are still other characters where perhaps this wouldn't be such a bad idea?

 

[Aztec]

No. Easiest question I've been asked all day. Next.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I'd say no. I get that the concern is that one studio can't focus the time/resources on enough films to do the medium justice. But if demand for the franchise continues to grow, Disney will devote more resources to it.

I truly hope they get exclusive F4 rights back, but if they don't I at least hope for the same Sony/Spider-Man deal to happen at Fox but only with F4. Fox can keep X-Men for all I care, their record with X-films isn't nearly as bad as with non-X-films.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Hell no.

Unless there's always a reasonable expiration date.

For example: "the movie rights return to Marvel Studios in 2020 no matter what".

 

[Spiderine]

No way would Marvel ever do that. Not only that but Disney would never ever allow it. They have their own platforms like TV and streaming that they can exploit with any character they want to showcase.

On the flip side, what would be in it for the other studio anyways? There would be way to many restrictions and far little control compared to what they got 20 years ago.

 

[StormC]

This is Disney we're talking about. They have more than enough money to run every one of their MCU franchises in their sleep. No.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Yeah, I think there is no reason really and it would be a step backwards. Other divisions can be created for any specific line if need be but all can be under the Marvel Studios banner inside the greater Disney corporate structure.

 

[dude stannis]

Completely unecessary. I'm beyond glad the X-Men are seperate, to be sure, but once the Fantastic Four come home, that's how it should stay.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

One of the worst ideas I've ever heard of.

 

[Angryfantasyfan]

The only way I see this happening is if it's Disney Studios or Pixar using a property like Power Pack. Outside of a Big Hero 6 internal Disney deal, no way.

 

[metaphysician]

Nope. Marvel has no characters that they can't put to good use, doubly so with Netflix.

 

[Xrated48]

The answer to this question is no

 

[Random490]

I wouldn't mind a partnership, Like a studio putting up most of the budget and Marvel retaining creative control. But with Marvel releasing 3 films a year I don't think they'll see a need. I feel the Venom film Sony is developing would benefit if it follows that idea. Marvel Studios have creative input such as screenplay and directors, Sony puts up the money and get the most from box office. It would be cool to be able to see a film that doesn't fit within Marvel's current plans but still have links to the MCU

 

[Yowza]

I wouldn't mind a partnership, Like a studio putting up most of the budget and Marvel retaining creative control. But with Marvel releasing 3 films a year I don't think they'll see a need. I feel the Venom film Sony is developing would benefit if it follows that idea. Marvel Studios have creative input such as screenplay and directors, Sony puts up the money and get the most from box office. It would be cool to be able to see a film that doesn't fit within Marvel's current plans but still have links to the MCU

If Marvel totally owned the Spiderman franchise I wonder what the odds would be for Marvel to make a Venom film under their studio in the next 20 years vs. Sony making a Venom film in the next 20 years with the deal that's currently in place?

 

[Mike Murdock]

Hell no.

Unless there's always a reasonable expiration date.

For example: "the movie rights return to Marvel Studios in 2020 no matter what".

I was going to say I didn't mind the idea, but an expiration is key. My suggestion would be "one movie only." If they want to make a sequel, they can renegotiate for a sequel.

 

[Dasher10]

Absolutely not. It worked out with Fox, Netflix and Sony (although Fox's treatment of the Fantastic Four leaves a lot to be desired) but renting characters out to Universal was a disaster as they simply allowed Namor to expire and don't care at all about a Hulk sequel but they aren't interested in selling the rights back for money and would rather sit on them.

Right now Fox own so many X-Men properties that they aren't even developing like X-Factor, Captain Britain and Alpha Flight. Marvel have licensed out so many characters that the licencees can't even do all of them.

Marvel right now have developed or are developing most of what they legally own the rights to. Iron Fist, Cloak and Dagger and Doctor Strange are being developed as we speak and Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Punisher, Inhumans and rumors of Ghost Rider, Thunderbolts, Moon Knight, Black Widow, Elektra, War Machine and Blade already abound.

The only properties that Marvel aren't even considering yet that they own the rights to are Eternals, Wonder Man (who's already been cast as Nathan Fillion), Ms. Marvel, Power Pack, Ms. Marvel, Runaways, Avengers Academy/Young Avengers, Sentry, Man Thing and Darkhawk. The latter of which is in a legal grey area where he can't be developed at all since he's tied to the Shi'Ar but Fox don't own him since he's his own property.

Black Knight, Sentry and Wonder Man would work but they lack as much sequel potential as everything else that Marvel are either working on or rumored to be. Man-Thing is a flat character who can't even talk and I can't see him getting his own film. I can see Runaways and a series comprising the casts of Avengers Academy and Young Avengers on Freeform if Cloak and Dagger does well just as I can see Ms. Marvel and Power Pack on the Disney Channel if Marvel ever want to market themselves to small children (which they should do).

 

[C. Lee]

No.

 

[GR8GODZILLAGOD]

Hell no.

 

[Abudefduf]

It's an interesting question, but the answer is definitely a sound no.
I don't get what they could possibly gain by doing this. They're pretty much dominating the movie scene right now.

 

[Dasher10]

So which properties should Marvel rent out? Maybe Darkhawk to Fox but Fox have enough on their plate, possibly too much. Man-Thing was once sold off to Lions Gate and the results were terrible. The Netflix and Sony deals only work because Marvel have complete creative control. Sony's Ghost Rider films and three out of five Spider-Man films were pretty bad and I have very low expectations for the Venom film as its not set in the MCU, produced by Arad and Tolmach and rumored to be directed by Josh Trank so I wouldn't loan anything else out to Sony. Universal would buy the rights but then decide not to do anything with them. Everything out of Lions Gate has been a disaster. Paramount sold the rights back. And Warner once owned Blade and Iron Man but they also own all the DC properties and won't do anything with a Marvel character because they won't earn anything from merchandise sales.

The suggested Freeform and Disney Channel series would still probably work as long as they're produced by Marvel Studios which would put everything under the Disney umbrella. That's not really selling properties.

As for Netflix, if the rumors of Thunderbolts, Ghost Rider, Elektra, Moon Knight and Blade are true, I can see that as a true, mutually beneficial partnership. They're the only real licencee who I feel actually work. They've done a great job so far and I have high hopes for Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Defenders and Punisher. Even then, Marvel get a portion of the DVD sales and full creative control.

So aside from Darkhawk, I can't see Marvel Studios selling anything else off. They're using nearly everything that they have.

 

[Abudefduf]

And what they're not using right now, could always come in handy later down the line. The MCU isn't guaranteed to last forever after all.

 

[Pecola1]

I'm all for them renting out a character like Squirrel Girl for a few years to be able to receive more funds to make a Moon Knight movie. (No hate plz, it's just an example)

I wan't marvel to be open to using all their tools, that sadly does include licensing.

I've seen a couple posts saying they will never have to since Marvel Studios is under Disney and Disney has plenty of money, there are two fatal flaws with this idea:

First, just because Marvel Studios is under Disney doesn't mean Disney is going to give them tons of money for things Disney doesn't think would be profitable. Marvel Studios can get funds and use this to help ensure they can make the movies they need. If they do that by renting out unusable characters temporarily, then so be it.

Second, by claiming they don't need the funds so they don't have to, you are only saying that they WILL NOT have to do it, not that it is not something they would ever do. So yes, they will almost certainly not do this anytime soon, but that doesn't mean it won't be considered.

I would be in support of limited time licenses, because we know, almost for a fact, that certain characters will not be used within the next x amount of years. (For instance, till 2020) Thus, why not let Marvel make money off of those characters, and allow other studios to make film adaptations of those characters, in the meantime. Marvel isn't going to be able to make 10 films per year, but there are at least 20 characters that people would love to have a solo out within the next 20 years. Thus, they definitely won't get their films, and it wouldn't be horrible if other studios picked up those unused characters, at least until Marvel can make films of them. The only problem would of course be comic book film competition, of their own characters by other studios.

 

[Angryfantasyfan]

The only reason Marvel licensed out properties to begin with was they weren't producing films. Now that they have their own production studio, it makes as much sense as Warner Brothers leasing out DC characters.

 

[BarryAllen]

No.

 

[Tony Stark]

No, they need to work on getting everything back in house.