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

[Orba]

Yeah, he is a writer and executive Producer for both.

 

[Eddie]

Interesting wrinkle to the debate/argument we were having last night about film rights: there have been more Sony leaks (surprise surprise), and they reveal that Sony does not own the film rights to a variety of Spider-Man minor characters that totally showed up in Spidey comics first. I haven't seen the full list (I'm not messing with downloading the info, I'm just looking over stuff news sites are posting), but it does seem to be mostly minor characters (Hypno-Hustler, Santa Claus Burglar, no I did not make Santa Claus Burglar up). Interestingly, alternate versions of characters may not be included in the film packages (Sony apparently doesn't have Spider-Ham). Allegedly, hundreds of minor Spider-Man characters don't actually fall into the Spidey rights. Interesting to see what this means for the long-term prospects of any Fox Fantastic Four franchise. It's likely Fox can't even use a variety of characters fans would have assumed would be in the FF package. It seems, based on the Spider-Man rights, that studios really do have to negotiate the rights to every single character, though some bundling probably happens with groups.

 

[Orba]

Yeah I saw that story, it does raise a lot of questions when it comes to the use of minor/one off characters.

 

[Eddie]

I'm wondering if the Fantastic Four film rights might only include the really obvious core FF villains (Doom, Galactus, Annihilus, Skrulls, Mole Man, etc.). Perhaps characters like Dragon Man and the Wizard aren't even available. Really minor characters probably aren't available.

Another fun note: Sony does not have the rights to use the Bombastic Bag Man. Maybe Fox has him. I want the rights to all go back home, but it would be kinda hilarious if we had Peter Parker running around in the Sonyverse, Peter Porker in the MCU, and the unidentified Bombastic Bag Man in a Fantastic Four movie. Heck, hire Garfield to play him. I hear he's available.

 

[Dark Raven]

The problem with Bag Man is that, other than the paper bag on his head, Peter is wearing a classic Fantastic Four costume. So I think that would be a very tricky one as it's essentially a Fantastic Four character in appearance.

 

[Orba]

I was surprised that Peter Porker Spider-Ham was on the list, sure he is offbeat but that he was not an automatic was interesting.

 

[Eddie]

I was surprised that Peter Porker Spider-Ham was on the list, sure he is offbeat but that he was not an automatic was interesting.

They may have kept him separate in the hopes of getting an animated film done, and Spider-Ham's film would benefit from the characters being considered a totally different contract not tied to the traditional character rights (therefore letting Ducktor Doom be in the film without being tied to the FF license).

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm wondering if the Fantastic Four film rights might only include the really obvious core FF villains (Doom, Galactus, Annihilus, Skrulls, Mole Man, etc.). Perhaps characters like Dragon Man and the Wizard aren't even available. Really minor characters probably aren't available.

Another fun note: Sony does not have the rights to use the Bombastic Bag Man. Maybe Fox has him. I want the rights to all go back home, but it would be kinda hilarious if we had Peter Parker running around in the Sonyverse, Peter Porker in the MCU, and the unidentified Bombastic Bag Man in a Fantastic Four movie. Heck, hire Garfield to play him. I hear he's available.

Im sure Fox has Wizard and Dragon Man, they're very engrained into the F4 myhos. However... the frightful four is next to impossible to use... no sandman, no hydroman, no Medusa.... im sure they have trapster though? Heh

Id wager 99% of characters "usually associated with" fall under the same rights. Unless they're major players and soli characters.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Interesting wrinkle to the debate/argument we were having last night about film rights: there have been more Sony leaks (surprise surprise), and they reveal that Sony does not own the film rights to a variety of Spider-Man minor characters that totally showed up in Spidey comics first. I haven't seen the full list (I'm not messing with downloading the info, I'm just looking over stuff news sites are posting), but it does seem to be mostly minor characters (Hypno-Hustler, Santa Claus Burglar, no I did not make Santa Claus Burglar up). Interestingly, alternate versions of characters may not be included in the film packages (Sony apparently doesn't have Spider-Ham). Allegedly, hundreds of minor Spider-Man characters don't actually fall into the Spidey rights. Interesting to see what this means for the long-term prospects of any Fox Fantastic Four franchise. It's likely Fox can't even use a variety of characters fans would have assumed would be in the FF package. It seems, based on the Spider-Man rights, that studios really do have to negotiate the rights to every single character, though some bundling probably happens with groups.

I'm wondering if the Fantastic Four film rights might only include the really obvious core FF villains (Doom, Galactus, Annihilus, Skrulls, Mole Man, etc.). Perhaps characters like Dragon Man and the Wizard aren't even available. Really minor characters probably aren't available.

Another fun note: Sony does not have the rights to use the Bombastic Bag Man. Maybe Fox has him. I want the rights to all go back home, but it would be kinda hilarious if we had Peter Parker running around in the Sonyverse, Peter Porker in the MCU, and the unidentified Bombastic Bag Man in a Fantastic Four movie. Heck, hire Garfield to play him. I hear he's available.

I'm sure it's very clearly defined and probably about 50 characters (out of probably 1000 or so potential characters).

I'd guess characters like Agatha Harkness, Wyatt Wingfoot etc. along with all the major villains (Mad Thinker, Annihilus, Puppet Master etc). People like Hate Monger and others probably aren't included (we know Black Panther, Inhumans etc. aren't included - Frightful Four probably isn't an option since Sandman and Medusa probably aren't part of FF package).

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Im sure Fox has Wizard and Dragon Man, they're very engrained into the F4 myhos. However... the frightful four is next to impossible to use... no sandman, no hydroman, no Medusa.... im sure they have trapster though? Heh

Id wager 99% of characters "usually associated with" fall under the same rights. Unless they're major players and soli characters.

Ha! I hadn't read your post when I posted mine above, but I agree. I think if we spent some time thinking about it, it would be pretty clear which characters are I probably included and which aren't. Doom, Galactus and Surfer probably required some discussion, but clearly they ended up falling into the FF set.

 

[Eddie]

What I'd really like to know is which alternate universe Fantastic Four characters they're actually allowed to use. I'm sure Ultimate is fine (though it'd be great if it wasn't, as the rights would probably revert), but if Sony can't use Spider-Ham Fox probably can't use Ducktor Doom. I could also see HERBIE being out of the question as he's originally from an alternate version.

Hmm, I wonder if X-23 would actually be allowed in an X-film?

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

What I'd really like to know is which alternate universe Fantastic Four characters they're actually allowed to use. I'm sure Ultimate is fine (though it'd be great if it wasn't, as the rights would probably revert), but if Sony can't use Spider-Ham Fox probably can't use Ducktor Doom. I could also see HERBIE being out of the question as he's originally from an alternate version.

Hmm, I wonder if X-23 would actually be allowed in an X-film?

I would bet that, for example, the Reed Richards who turned to Thing from an alternate universe was not included in the original rights.

But there is probably a process to get such characters included - probably a simple matter of the studio requesting in writing the use of that character for a future film. Fifteen years ago, such requests would probably be approved quickly and easily. These days, there might be much more wrangling.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

X-23 isnt from an alternate universe. So surely shes with fox

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Id also wager that while sony may not have spider-ham... they may actually have 2099 and spidergirl considering so many names, villains, and themes are so deeply rooted into the 616 mythos. While spider-ham is a farce

 

[Dark Raven]

Marvel Studios could make a Spider-Ham animated movie, just like we get Lego Batman movies which don't undermine the actual Batman character in the DC cinematic universe.

 

[Eddie]

X-23 isnt from an alternate universe. So surely shes with fox

Technically, she originally is. I'm not saying Fox definitely doesn't have her or anything, but she is not originally from the 616 continuity. She was created for X-Men Evolution.

Hell, it's possible the producers of that cartoon hold her film rights.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Technically, she originally is. I'm not saying Fox definitely doesn't have her or anything, but she is not originally from the 616 continuity. She was created for X-Men Evolution.

Hell, it's possible the producers of that cartoon hold her film rights.

I dont think that matters considering Nyx put her into the 616 mythos. If someone exists in the main comics, that shouldnt be up for debate. Its really no different than FOX owning post deal new x-men.

if a character resides in the 616 universe, or has heavy ties to the 616 mythos (age of apocalypse for instance) they are all with their retrospective properties... i think you're making this way more complicated

 

[Eddie]

It's entirely possible the X-Men deal is different. It's well known that Marvel didn't make such a good deal on that one. Here's the thing, though. You said THIS in the other thread:

Its always been more about "who they're mostly associated with and how they lean/align usually in the marvel universe" also, where the mass majority of their library falls under or with

Note the use of "always". See, most people did assume it worked that way. That's what's interesting about the leak. There are Spider-Man characters Sony doesn't own! It doesn't matter how minor they are (I'd argue Spider-Ham isn't minor. He had an ongoing that lasted longer than many others, and he's shown up in more media than many of the X-Men), these "blanket rights" deals we all assumed were around have been debunked. That's interesting. That's worth discussing.

Also a quick note on 616 appearances being the only thing that matters with "tricky" characters: that's likely not true. James Gunn has said Marvel Studios can't use Bug. Bug is a 616 Marvel creation, but he was first used in the licensed comic Micronauts. That's likely the reason Bug is unavailable for film even though Bug can still be used in the comics (he was one of the only original characters, so Marvel has him).

 

[spideyboy_1111]

It's entirely possible the X-Men deal is different. It's well known that Marvel didn't make such a good deal on that one. Here's the thing, though. You said THIS in the other thread:

Its always been more about "who they're mostly associated with and how they lean/align usually in the marvel universe" also, where the mass majority of their library falls under or with

Note the use of "always". See, most people did assume it worked that way. That's what's interesting about the leak. There are Spider-Man characters Sony doesn't own! It doesn't matter how minor they are (I'd argue Spider-Ham isn't minor. He had an ongoing that lasted longer than many others, and he's shown up in more media than many of the X-Men), these "blanket rights" deals we all assumed were around have been debunked. That's interesting. That's worth discussing.

Also a quick note on 616 appearances being the only thing that matters with "tricky" characters: that's likely not true. James Gunn has said Marvel Studios can't use Bug. Bug is a 616 Marvel creation, but he was first used in the licensed comic Micronauts. That's likely the reason Bug is unavailable for film even though Bug can still be used in the comics (he was one of the only original characters, so Marvel has him).

But thats just it... the spider-ham farce isnt just spiderman based, its the entire marvel universe. A spider-ham film would be aken to a parody movie, which is what it is... of course it has seperate rights.

The only mildly interesting reveal is bag man... but considering hes spiderman and a fantastic four costume... its likely neither studio could have used him so they didnt own him. Now... could sony put peter in civies and a bag mask... and be the same thing? Sure.

Third party characters like bug, and now Angela are a whole sifferent set of rules im sure. Doesnt make what i said any less true

 

[fangz]

to me, it seems like these contracts were maybe way less defined when they were signed than we think they were. like to me the Quicksilver/Quicksilver situation played out more like... no one really knew where the character stood, but Marvel was pretty sure they could get away with using him. based on whatever was signed. contracts are often largely matters of lawyers and estimations of what it's possible to pull and not suffer consequences.

that's why there is often a lack of upfront answers regarding this stuff, cuz it's not something that exists in a black and white sense.

 

[fangz]

i'm one of those people who still does not see how X-Men could cross universe with FF unless Marvel at some point gave their agreement to terms on that crossover.

and maybe they already have, maybe they might in the future, but it doesn't seem like a given to me that such a crossover makes any sense, legally, without Marvel's renegotiation of terms for it.

absolutely none of this stuff is in any way guaranteed to make sense tho.

 

[Kelly]

I don't know that anyone knows for sure if this could happen, none of us know exactly what is in the contract with Marvel. Everything being stated is simply speculation.

 

[Orba]

Haha yes, Half the time it looks like not even the studios are sure just who is allowed to do what.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I don't know that anyone knows for sure if this could happen, none of us know exactly what is in the contract with Marvel. Everything being stated is simply speculation.

Haha yes, Half the time it looks like not even the studios are sure just who is allowed to do what.

Even those who have read the contract may not know exactly what is possible.

A patent lawyer once told me: "We can't be sure exactly what your patent does and doesn't cover until we take it to court and a judge decides."

 

[starscream22]

Haha yes, Half the time it looks like not even the studios are sure just who is allowed to do what.

True, Feige wasn't even sure about who owned King Pin once Daredevil reverted. So I'm not about to take the word of the guy who created Domashev seriously.(Kinberg)

Sure it's all speculation but some speculation is more plausible than other types.

So if Fox could kill two birds with one stone in order to keep the rights, they would have already.