The "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) thread - Part 8

[starscream22]

I'm very concerned with the longevity of the X-Men franchise. Not that it hasn't been an outstanding run all things considered. But the limitations are obvious and do not need to be be restated by me.

Well they've been spring boarding off of Marvel Studios lately so I don't see them changing their "strategy" in the future.

So stay tuned for more empty promises about crossovers that will never happen while doing a p!ss poor job at emulating the MCU with a franchise that SHOULD actually be better.

 

[Zarex]

Isn't Touchstone Disney's studio for making non-Disney films?

Touchstone is used solely by Disney these days for distribution of Dreamwork films in a deal that expires in 2016.

 

[The Infernal]

Well they've been spring boarding off of Marvel Studios lately so I don't see them changing their "strategy" in the future.

So stay tuned for more empty promises about crossovers that will never happen while doing a p!ss poor job at emulating the MCU with a franchise that SHOULD actually be better.

Really glad those rumours of a potential crossover died down. I was interested way way back when they first emerged and next to nothing was known about the direction of the FF then, but now I'm just hopeful they're put to bed permanently.

I enjoy the X movies again with their resurgence since The Wolverine & DoFP. I'm not interested in seeing that dragged down with this FF.

 

[Orba]

Really glad those rumours of a potential crossover died down. I was interested way way back when they first emerged and next to nothing was known about the direction of the FF then, but now I'm just hopeful they're put to bed permanently.

I enjoy the X movies again with their resurgence since The Wolverine & DoFP. I'm not interested in seeing that dragged down with this FF.

While there were rumours we doubt that they could do it even if they wanted to. They are two separate franchise under two separate contracts with different terms for things like what cut of the profits Marvel get, so unless the contracts already contain terms on how the franchises could be used together then they can't do it. For example the FF rights give Marvel a bigger cut than the X-Men franchise so which figure would be used in a crossover. Also the films have reversion clauses, they have to keep making the films to keep the rights alive, in a crossover would it count to the FF rights or X-Men rights or both. And if they are not already built into the existing rights agreements then a crossover won't happen as Disney would never give permission.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I would agree that a straight acquisition would make no sense. But a joint venture spinoff of Sony's entertainment holdings (Columbia Entertainment?) with both Sony and Disney as 50/50 partners? I think that could work.

Again not really because the business strategies of Sony Pictures Entertainment and the Walt Disney Company are completely different. Sony Pictures is more in line of being a more traditional movie studio that pumps out all sorts of films. The Walt Disney Company on the other hand uses their various IPs and holdings as extremely profitable multimedia juggernauts.

Asides from having the Spider-Man film rights, the home media rights to the Sony Muppet movies, Jim Henson's movies with Colombia Pictures, and the Ghostbusters IP, there really isn't much that meshes well with the Walt Disney Company's business strategy. The Walt Disney Company doesn't really care about Oscar fare like Captain Philips and American Hustle. They don't care about R-rated comedies like 21 Jump Street and This is the End. IPs like Annie, James Bond (an MGM IP mind you), Men in Black, Robert Langdon, etc. just don't fit in with the Walt Disney Company's licensing and merchandising strategies.

There is just literally nothing that Sony Pictures Entertainment brings to the table for the Walt Disney Company. If there is a company that Sony's entertainment properties, merging with Sumner Redstone's media properties would be a more logical answer. Viacom and CBS properties like Star Trek, Transformers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, etc. would mesh well with what Sony has and both companies would fulfill what each other are lacking.

Last year Dan Loeb valued Sony Entertainment holdings at around $8 billion, putting a 50% Disney stake in line with prior acquisitions of Marvel and Lucasfilm.

The acquisitions of Marvel Entertainment and Lucasfilm go waaaaay beyond just making movies though. They were about filling in holes the Walt Disney Company had with a certain demographic (boys) and both Marvel and Star Wars go in line with the Walt Disney Company's business strategy of having properties that are extremely exploitable on film, television, merchandising, video games, theme parks, licensing, etc.

Sony Pictures Entertainment just doesn't offer what Marvel Entertainment and Lucasfilm offered.

Thus the appeal of a Columbia Entertainment joint venture relationship. Disney gains access to Spidey along with some of the family friendly franchises you mentioned. And Disney is also able to invest in R-rated, serious dramas and other non-Disney fare without impacting the Disney brand.

But the Walt Disney Company does not want to invest in R-rated serious dramas or properties that are not exploitable. Take a look at how they're treating the Touchstone Pictures label. Remember that Bob Iger sold off Miramax a few years ago?

Also, Disney's 5 year distribution deal with Dreamworks is nearing an end, so the Mouse may be on the lookout for a better deal. The studio got a 10% BO return with their Dreamworks deal.

I honestly don't think that the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group is all that interested in renewing their deal with DreamWorks. Asides from very few movies like the Help and Spielberg's directorial films, the DreamWorks slate just hasn't been very successful. Just like how the Walt Disney Motion Pictures group stopped caring about distributing the non-Miyazaki Studio Ghibli's films, I doubt they have much interest in continuing the deal with DreamWorks because it's a waste of their marketing and distribution resources.

And honestly, I think that the Walt Disney Company will most likely sell the Touchstone Pictures and Hollywood Pictures film libraries once the DreamWorks deal is over.

And, DreamWorks has also been forced to find other distribution partners because the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group just simply stopped caring. It's why 20th Century Fox and Mister Smith Entertainment took up some distribution duties with DreamWorks films.

Well... maybe Bond had an Adele sized rack before the bariatric surgery and weight loss ... lots of milk in the tank.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Isn't Touchstone Disney's studio for making non-Disney films?

It used to be for that in the 1990's, but now the label is just used for distribution of films not made by Disney subsidiaries (like DreamWorks and Studio Ghibli) or films that the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group has no idea what to do with (like Lucasfilm's Strange Magic).

 

[Nokio]

This is pretty much my perspective, and why I'm not worried about oversaturation of comic book movies on the public at the expense of the MCU if Marvel Studios trades its FF properties for full rights to the X-Men characters and a bunch of X-movies plop out as a result to spite Marvel Studios future Phases.

No matter how many dynamic characters exist in the X-verse, thematically every X-men movie or spin off deals with the same thing. Man vs. Mutant. "They hate us because they fear us." Some variation on that riff in every single story. If Fox was to expand this into 2-3 movies a year, you'd be hitting the same nail over and over and over and over again, whether it's a Gambit film or an X-Force film, almost seasonally through a calendar year. The comic publishing wing can get away with this because the persecuted mutants always represented on a certain level the persecuted comic book collector--one of the reasons the mutants were so popular. But the public at large, if having it shoved down their throat more often, would probably have enough, "Geez, we get it, peace love and rock and roll let's move on." But if you go away from that and just tell a straightforward X-Men vs. the Brood movie that makes no mention of man vs. mutant...the franchise would sacrifice its core value and identity that won its niche fanbase--sizable in the comics realm, unknown in size in the public at large. It's a low ceiling for Fox and the mutants thematically.

Likewise, some of the most popular and distinct storylines from the comics have already or will be adopted by 2016 (Dark Phoenix...Origin...Days of Future Past...Apocalypse...requisite "Magneto as the bad guy" story).

Meanwhile, Marvel Studios can shift thematically from one genre to the next in a shared universe when they release 3 films a year. Mythology, horror, cosmic sci fi, war, geopolitics, techno-thriller...without being constrained by "We Have Something Important To Say That is Socially Relevant Pay Attention Please" drumbeat. Each new film and new genre increases the intrigue of the shared MCU, not detracts from it. Which is what made Marvel comics so great, how interwoven it's universe that included such diverse concepts as Silver Surfer, Shang Chi, Power Pack, and Son of Satan.

Agreed, however I don't see the need for Gambit if he were to get a solo film for any focus of Man against Mutant at all. I think with good development stories can be crafted that don't focus on the mutant/human conflict in a Gambit film and some others as well. I think Excalibur can also go in a different direction like Fantasy and Magic, as well as X-Factor with super powered government agents handling threats from super powered spies, villains and terrorists that threaten national security. The potential is certainly there but Fox has already made it difficult to pull off cause they never got the concept of Xmen fully and they certainly wouldn't know what to do with spin off teams based on their track record I believe. Singer was never the right man for the job in my opinion.

The Xmen served a purpose in the overall Marvel universe. Marvel as whole is very diverse and the reason Xmen are limited because Marvel has so many characters who can touch on different genres as you mentioned like Horror, sci-fi, adventure, fantasy, and even thrillers.

 

[Docker2.0]

The only main X-Men villian not to return so far is Phoenix & The Hellfireclub. Why do you think Apocalypse is one and done?

Call it a gut feeling.

 

[Dasher10]

Honestly, Fox is limited in what they can do with marketing. Disney controls their merch rights. Fox can't market their films without footage since they can't make a profit off any tie-in merchandise. Guardians used a cheap sizzle reel with test footage but when a property that's already damaged goods and heavily filmed before a green screen gets shown at Comic-Con, that's going to hurt it, particularly if it's just Jamie bell in a mocap suit pretending to be heavy enough to shake the entire room when he walks, then it'll be a source of unintentional comedy.

That said, Fox does need to show a trailer within the next few months. The movie's been in post-production for months. If we seriously need to wait longer than just Fast 6 to get a trailer (which is the first week in April) then Fox was just withholding footage and it had nothing to do with how much time it took to finish post-production.

And keep in mind that Ant-Man releases a month earlier and also lacks a trailer.

And neither Bond nor X-Men are running out of steam. Skyfall was a critical and commercial success and the last three X-Men films have each been well received critically. Plus, X-men JUST rebooted with DOFP while still holding on to the First Class continuity. That's in addition to the X-men villains who we still haven't seen yet like Stryfe, Mister Sinister, Genesis, Bastion, Shadow King, Vargas, Cassandra Nova, Omega Red, John Sublime, Daken, Selene, Sauron, Arcade, Cameron Hodge, Black Tom, Spiral, Children of the Vault, Mojo, etc. The X-Men have one of the biggest rogues galleries in all of comics. There are still TONS of stories to tell, not to mention that the new timeline means that we can get better versions of Juggernaut, Lady Deathstrike and Sabretooth.

 

[The Infernal]

Yeah, but it's not like FF is the only Marvel property they have that doesn't have merchandise to rely and such. Having a presence is still more than trailers and promo pics. You have those involved talking about the movie in interviews and viral marketing. FF is a black hole in that it has no real presence. No one is showing anything from the movie and those involved seem very reluctant to even talk about the movie.

 

[Eddie]

Honestly, Fox is limited in what they can do with marketing. Disney controls their merch rights. Fox can't market their films without footage since they can't make a profit off any tie-in merchandise. Guardians used a cheap sizzle reel with test footage but when a property that's already damaged goods and heavily filmed before a green screen gets shown at Comic-Con, that's going to hurt it, particularly if it's just Jamie bell in a mocap suit pretending to be heavy enough to shake the entire room when he walks, then it'll be a source of unintentional comedy.

That said, Fox does need to show a trailer within the next few months. The movie's been in post-production for months. If we seriously need to wait longer than just Fast 6 to get a trailer (which is the first week in April) then Fox was just withholding footage and it had nothing to do with how much time it took to finish post-production.

And keep in mind that Ant-Man releases a month earlier and also lacks a trailer.

No. No it does not. The entire purpose of a trailer is to advertise the film. Let's ask the good folks at Merriam-Webster what a trailer is in the context of a film:

trail·er noun \ˈtrā-lər\
: a long platform or box with wheels that is pulled behind a truck or car and used to transport things

: a vehicle that can be pulled by a truck or car and that can be parked and used as an office, vacation home, etc.

: a selected group of scenes that are shown to advertise a movie

Note that nowhere does it say a trailer has to be an MPAA rated short of a specific length that plays ahead of a film. A "trailer" is really just an advertisement in the form of a scene or clips of a scene. Let's also remember that there is such a thing as a "teaser" trailer that often consists of footage made ahead of the actual film. Looking at all of this, Ant-Man has had multiple trailers, and it's been getting them for quite some time.

There was a teaser trailer shown to an audience back when Wright was still involved. It was not available to the public, but it was absolutely a trailer. Much of this footage was later made available to the public in a Marvel TV special watched by millions.

In other words, the public totally got an Ant-Man teaser trailer.

We also need to take the latest Marvel TV special into account. It featured footage from a group of scenes as they were being filmed. It was, in a behind the scenes way, a form of a trailer (because a trailer is really just a word for an ad).

I'd suggest that comparing Fantastic Four to Ant-Man may not be the wisest move. One has little to no promotion months ahead of release. One has been advertised to millions of people over a year ahead of release.

 

[marcvader]

Ant-Man has shown video at the con as well as bts clips during its special along with all the official stills and bts pics.

 

[RAE072]

No. No it does not. The entire purpose of a trailer is to advertise the film. Let's ask the good folks at Merriam-Webster what a trailer is in the context of a film:

trail·er noun \ˈtrā-lər\
: a long platform or box with wheels that is pulled behind a truck or car and used to transport things

: a vehicle that can be pulled by a truck or car and that can be parked and used as an office, vacation home, etc.

: a selected group of scenes that are shown to advertise a movie

Note that nowhere does it say a trailer has to be an MPAA rated short of a specific length that plays ahead of a film. A "trailer" is really just an advertisement in the form of a scene or clips of a scene. Let's also remember that there is such a thing as a "teaser" trailer that often consists of footage made ahead of the actual film. Looking at all of this, Ant-Man has had multiple trailers, and it's been getting them for quite some time.

There was a teaser trailer shown to an audience back when Wright was still involved. It was not available to the public, but it was absolutely a trailer. Much of this footage was later made available to the public in a Marvel TV special watched by millions.

In other words, the public totally got an Ant-Man teaser trailer.

We also need to take the latest Marvel TV special into account. It featured footage from a group of scenes as they were being filmed. It was, in a behind the scenes way, a form of a trailer (because a trailer is really just a word for an ad).

I'd suggest that comparing Fantastic Four to Ant-Man may not be the wisest move. One has little to no promotion months ahead of release. One has been advertised to millions of people over a year ahead of release.

Hell, trailers, or teasers, don't even have to be a series of scenes.

Look at The Dark Knight teaser. That was a slow reveal of the bat symbol, with voice over from Bruce, Alfred and then Joker.

But it also gave us our first taste of how Joker would sound. And actual dialogue from the movie(albeit edited and mixed around a bit to make sense in the context of the teaser).

Come to think of it, yeah, I don't buy that they're "waiting until they have something to show" before they give us something. That's crap.

There's literally no reason why they can't mock up a poster with the official movie 4 on it.

They don't want to show us, plain and simple.

 

[Orba]

Also while FF is now being released a month after Ant-Man it was originally going to be released a month before it, a shift of two months that happened after shooting had ended.

 

[EssayM]

I think Fox's hope is that, if they can show people footage that's been polished to a spit-shine (at least visually), they can distract people from all the negative press they've been getting. Sort of like dangling a shiny set of keys to distract a toddler.

 

[starscream22]

And keep in mind that Ant-Man releases a month earlier and also lacks a trailer.

No offense but using any other CBM currently in production as a comparison to this Reboot is ABSURD!

Antman's franchise is not coming off of a previous loosing streak and Marvel-Disney does not have a track record of releasing crappy non-Xmen based Marvel films.

So to say that Fox can just put their feet up and be worry free only makes sense if our early assumptions were correct that Foxes motives are just to keep the rights as leverage and not to make a quality film resembling current CBM standards.

I don't like Singers work but the marketing effort for DOFP was clearly present throughout production of that film.

Why?

Because unlike this reboot Fox put a lot of money behind that film and recognized the competition surrounding it and even used it (ASM2/MCU revealing Quicksilver).

 

[starscream22]

Ant-Man has shown video at the con as well as bts clips during its special along with all the official stills and bts pics.

This! And there's no reason to rule out the possibility that Ant-man may have a link/cameo with AOU. That type of marketing you can't buy unless you're a Director with contractual obligations to Fox (ASM2 end credit scene).

 

[hulk24]

I present Ben Grimm aka the thing

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[Eddie]

I present Ben Grimm aka the thing

[/URL][/IMG]

Dear God, it's the bastard love child of Ben Grimm and Bio Broli!

 

[GR8GODZILLAGOD]

I present Ben Grimm aka the thing

Is that actual concept art?

 

[MadVillainy]

I doubt that's it. Post a link for where it was found

 

[hulk24]

http://www.zbrushcentral.com/showthread.php?190359-portfolio-update
It's from a digital concept artist, who's worked on jack the giant slayer and ninja turtles. Both of which look shockingly similar to the final designs

 

[hulk24]

If you look up the leaked thing pic of just the head and look at this it's the same

 

[Docker2.0]

My gawd is that horrible! I guess they are turning the Thing into the Hulk. He even has some green on him and can change back at will. Next thing you know, he'd have a known anger problem.

 

[Eddie]

First look at the movie!

I hear Thing's susceptible to seawater in this one.

Also, remember when people were freaking out about the leaked bust looking vaguely greenish and people said it was just because of the green screen? Hmm...