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

[Eddie]

Guardians of the Galaxy absolutely had a trailer before February. It had a trailer two weeks into filming. It wasn't a public trailer, but it did exactly what a trailer is supposed to do: hype up the movie. The Marvel Studios films are also in a weird situation where the post-credits and mid-credits scenes sometimes serve as a teaser trailer in a way. The public was teased with Guardians of the Galaxy stuff with Thor: The Dark World. There was also an extensive marketing campaign that included numerous official set photos, concept art releases before filming even started, and social media interaction. Apples and oranges, as they say.

 

[starscream22]

The Kree were optioned as part of the Ms Marvel and Inhumans rights. Black Panther is his own hero since he's part of the Avengers. Skrulls are shared with the Hulk.

Doom and Galactus are part of the FF rights. The same applies to Silver Surfer, Annihilus, Alicia Masters, Mad Thinker, Puppet Master, Blastaar, Terrax, Wizard, Franklin Richards, Valeria Richards, Terminus, Psycho Man and Willie Lumpkin.

As far as grey areas go, what I'm not certain of are Uatu who's either shared or at Fox since he's an integral part of the FF but he's also tied to the Marvel Universe as a whole. Thundra is a Fantastic Four villain but she's also one of She-Hulk's greatest enemies and Agatha Harkness is either with the FF or the Avengers.

Me and Ragnarok were having a similar discussing about Kazar and the Savage Land and if Marvel Studios can use the Mutates and just have the High Evolutionary as their creator. He could also be the Father of QS and SW instead of Magnus.

 

[EssayM]

GOTG also had the proven quality of the Marvel/Disney brand to guarantee people would at least take a look at it, if only to see what the next MCU movie was. This film has no one anticipating it, and Fox doesn't exactly have a sterling track record. If this film has any hope of getting an audience, it needs marketing, and fast.

I want to be optimistic about this film, but the total lack of marketing is really making it difficult. How can I defend something based on nothing but terrible interviews and soundbites?

 

[RAE072]

GOTG also had the proven quality of the Marvel/Disney brand to guarantee people would at least take a look at it, if only to see what the next MCU movie was. This film has no one anticipating it, and Fox doesn't exactly have a sterling track record. If this film has any hope of getting an audience, it needs marketing, and fast.

I want to be optimistic about this film, but the total lack of marketing is really making it difficult. How can I defend something based on nothing but terrible interviews and soundbites?

Excellent question.

 

[starscream22]

I want to be optimistic about this film, but the total lack of marketing is really making it difficult. How can I defend something based on nothing but terrible interviews and soundbites?

It's not really your job to do so is it....

Granted we all tend to entertain other speculations about this nature of this reboot when we're bored in this thread but the most likely case is and has always been that Fox is only making this cheap, crappy, last minute reboot in order to retain it and keep it as leverage over Marvel. Whether some naive Fox supporter runs and forks over their cash to help recoup the little it cost to make this film is all fine and well but the real luster is in bartering with Marvel-Disney when the time is right.

And as much as I hate Singers Fox-men it's nothing like what Fox is doing with this reboot so there's clearly a distinction between the films Fox do like and the ones they couldn't care less about.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

How can I defend something based on nothing but terrible interviews and soundbites?

By sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALA every time someone offers evidence to the contrary.

 

[Tymminator]

Between Star Wars and Marvel alone, Disney is going to make a killing next year. Profits from merchandising alone is going to be massive.

 

[Eddie]

GOTG also had the proven quality of the Marvel/Disney brand to guarantee people would at least take a look at it, if only to see what the next MCU movie was. This film has no one anticipating it, and Fox doesn't exactly have a sterling track record. If this film has any hope of getting an audience, it needs marketing, and fast.

I want to be optimistic about this film, but the total lack of marketing is really making it difficult. How can I defend something based on nothing but terrible interviews and soundbites?

Simple, you look forward to it based on the incredible talent attached to the film! Original writer Jeremy Slater has never put his name on a negatively reviewed film, you know. This is his first film, but still, no bad films yet! Plus, Simon Kinberg handled rewrites. Why, as many as TWO of the films featuring his writing are certified fresh! FRESH!!! He's batting nearly .300!

 

[0siris]

The potential for that boat has sailed and passed in my opinion and even still they can't match Marvel in terms of characters. Their are just to many that Marvel has. Fox is a little better then Sony in terms of numbers but FOX has no idea what to do and how to develop the mutants that is in their universe. They are to Wolverine focused and when First Class became the lowest grossing Xmen film they figured it was because Wolverine wasn't in it. They offered Jackman a multi million dollar deal per pic for something like several more films if i'm not mistaken. I'm not even sure if he accepted or not. I just didn't care enough to follow it.

FOX has made the Xmen as everyone knows way to Wolverine focused. Everything is centered around him while no other characters has really gotten any development. The have developed Charles and Erik more and god help us Mystique for reasons that just baffles me. Mystique is a villain, always was and now they are trying to make her like an anti hero or something because of Jennifer Lawrence'ss popularity. I mean announcing the possibility of a Mystique solo film???? What? I'm sorry but the Xmen has way to many rich characters that deserve film long before Mystique should even be considered.

I'll be fair and say with a good writer and director with vision I believe any character can have a good film even if the box office numbers are so so, even Mystique. Yes she is a complex character but who wants to see a Mystique film, even if it's well done. She is a supporting charter at best and functions as henchman of the main villain. Yes she's had solo efforts in the comics but she just isn't interesting enough to build a movie around. Sorry but FOX don't get it at all.

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.

 

[RAE072]

Simple, you look forward to it based on the incredible talent attached to the film! Original writer Jeremy Slater has never put his name on a negatively reviewed film, you know. This is his first film, but still, no bad films yet! Plus, Simon Kinberg handled rewrites. Why, as many as TWO of the films featuring his writing are certified fresh! FRESH!!! He's batting nearly .300!

And boy, that director! With such classics under his belt as Chronicle!

And...Chronicle!

Oh and don't forget Chronicle!

Rename this the Positive thread because I've been totally turned around on this entire movie!

 

[Eddie]

Between Star Wars and Marvel alone, Disney is going to make a killing next year. Profits from merchandising alone is going to be massive.

With Spider-Man merchandise alone Disney is making more money than Sony's film division.


Ha ha ha, thanks North Korea!

 

[Mr.M]

Apparently some Sony internal documents leaked. Long story short, it isn't looking good. Their own employees apparently hate the films they're making. It also confirms that Sony gets nothing from any Spider-Man merchandise. We really already knew that, but this should serve as hard confirmation for the naysayers.

So yeah, look for Marvel to get Spidey back one way or another within the next ten years tops. Now if only the North Koreans would hack Fox and get their dirty laundry out there for the world to see...

God bless Kim Jong Un? It's a sad state of affairs we fanboys live in.

 

[Eddie]

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).

They adapted stories besides requisite "Magneto as the bad guy"?! When the **** did that happen?

 

[Mr.M]

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.

 

[Eddie]

I honestly don't think Fox has much of a chance at maintaining the franchise without Jackman. I've enjoyed every single X-film (to varying degrees, obviously), but the producers of the franchise seem to struggle to take any real chances with the franchise. They do what they do relatively well, but they don't seem to want to draw from very much of the source material. I guess Deadpool and Gambit are attempts at doing something different, but I suspect Deadpool is a rights grab not unlike The Fantastic Four (see, this post is totally on topic!) as Fox didn't acquire the Deadpool rights when they got X-Men (Newline was developing a Deadpool film). The timing of the release is, suspiciously, seven years after the last Deadpool film appearance. As for Gambit, I don't really see that one lighting the world on fire.

 

[Tymminator]

O

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.

I have to admit, after "X-Men:Apocalypse" I myself really don't have a desire to follow the X-franchise further.

It doesn't mean I'm dead set against it (like I am for the FF reboot, no way in hell I'm going to ever see that), and if they have an interesting premise I'll check it out, but I kind feel after 2016 I'm FoXed-out with this version of X-Men as I feel by then Fox will have used my favorite and IMO biggest/best X-storylines and did their versions of those stories allteady. I don't plan to see Gambit or any X-solos except for possibly a Wolverine film if its truly based off of "Old Man Logan".

Again , it's not a definate, but just where I'm leaning.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

GOTG didn't get a trailer until February.

GOTG's first trailer was just a modified version of the sizzle reel (shot in just 10 days, mind you) they had at Comic Con 7 months before, where they had a panel (something FF didn't). They also had the title and concept art at the show the previous year. That's like 2 straight years of build up leading to its release.

 

[Docker2.0]

O

I have to admit, after "X-Men:Apocalypse" I myself really don't have a desire to follow the X-franchise further.

It doesn't mean I'm dead set against it (like I am for the FF reboot, no way in hell I'm going to ever see that), and if they have an interesting premise I'll check it out, but I kind feel after 2016 I'm FoXed-out with this version of X-Men as I feel by then Fox will have used my favorite and IMO biggest/best X-storylines and did their versions of those stories allteady. I don't plan to see Gambit or any X-solos except for possibly a Wolverine film if its truly based off of "Old Man Logan".

Again , it's not a definate, but just where I'm leaning.

That's how I feel. I like Singer's films(though he strays far from the comics)but having Apocolypse as a one and done villian is a mistake. Plus their continuity sucks and they don't seem to have any plans at all. They should have worked with Marvel instead of fighting them every chance they got. Sony BETTER work with them because they are already on the brink and I think Spiderman has been their saving grace. But how long can that last when he's the only character they have?

 

[MakeMinesMarvel]

That's how I feel. I like Singer's films(though he strays far from the comics)but having Apocolypse as a one and one villian is a mistake.

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

 

[hippie_hunter]

Disney could realistically buy Sony, especially after Sony drains some more money. I don't think they'd really want to, though. That's kinda like buying a boat with a massive hole in the bottom that's currently out to sea.

Exactly.

But yeah. They could buy Sony. Even if just the Sony Pictures/Columbia part of it..

They just don't want to, and (as stated before) don't need to. Sony will now be coming to them, and not the other way around. That is, if they haven't already.

The Walt Disney Company acquiring Sony makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The Walt Disney Company is a pure media entertainment/licensing company. Sony on the other hand is a mish-mash Japanese conglomerate.

The Walt Disney Company has absolutely no need to get into the vast majority of businesses that Sony is involved in. The Walt Disney Company doesn't need to get into life insurance, banking, mobile phones, televisions, etc. To make it even more awkward is the simple fact that the Walt Disney Company's preferred partner in the various consumer electronic sectors is Apple, which competes with Sony in so many sectors.

Even Sony Pictures really doesn't fit in with the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group. Asides from acquiring some titles that the Jim Henson Company was involved with like Labyrinth and the Dark Crystal, the few Muppets movies in Sony's library, Ghostbusters, and the Spider-Man film rights, Sony Pictures' library just doesn't mesh with the business strategy that the Walt Disney Company has set for their film division. The vast majority of Sony Pictures' IPs just aren't designed to be mass multimedia juggernauts that the IPs owned by the Walt Disney Company are. And the Walt Disney Company has decided to shy away from more adult and serious fare (like R-rated comedies, serious drama projects like Captain Philips, and hardcore sci-fi like District 9) in favor of projects that have more mass appeal (think Avengers, Toy Story, Frozen, Star Wars, etc.).

The only division of Sony that I think would probably mesh well with the Walt Disney Company would probably be Sony's music holdings in Sony Music Entertainment and Sony/ATV Music Publishing which have a wide variety of artists with mass appeal like Michael Jackson, Johnny Cash, Garth Brooks, Carrie Underwood, One Direction, AC/DC, Aerosmith, and partial Beatles rights.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Also Bond has been milked after they rebooted.

So that's why Skyfall is the highest grossing Bond movie and is one of the most critically acclaimed? In North America (the most important film market), the Bond franchise has only seen box office grosses increase ever since they rebooted. Not only that, but considering that the Bond franchise is a 20+ movie franchise that has seen some really bad lows, how can you even possibly conceive that the Bond Reboot series has been milked.

And Spidey is sinking.

An IP that can be saved with a good movie. Just ask the X-Men franchise how a couple of good movies can save the film franchise after a series of rock bottom films. The problem is that Sony Pictures just has no idea what to do with the IP.

But one or two good films put the franchise back on track.

Where is the value at Columbia Pictures at the moment? I guess they have Rogen/Franco and the Apatow crew for comedies, but eventually Rogen will get too fat and unfunny.

Sony Pictures consists of a very valuable film library. Their current film output is utterly terrible thanks to piss poor management in Sony Pictures, but Amy Pascal and Michael Lyntons' days there are numbered and Sony will eventually find a film executive who can steer the studio right.

Tangent over.

A tangent that really has no factual basis to it.

Warners has blown me away though. This is more shocking than Affleck as Batman. I think the major outlets are going to be covering this like crazy once we get some set pics, and costumes I'm assuming, if WB isn't completely incompetent.

I've been liking what Warner Bros. has announced so far, but I'm warily optimistic. I feel like this could be really, really, awesome. Or really, really terrible.

 

[Zarex]

The Walt Disney Company acquiring Sony makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The Walt Disney Company is a pure media entertainment/licensing company. Sony on the other hand is a mish-mash Japanese conglomerate.

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.

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.

Even Sony Pictures really doesn't fit in with the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group. Asides from acquiring some titles that the Jim Henson Company was involved with like Labyrinth and the Dark Crystal, the few Muppets movies in Sony's library, Ghostbusters, and the Spider-Man film rights, Sony Pictures' library just doesn't mesh with the business strategy that the Walt Disney Company has set for their film division. The vast majority of Sony Pictures' IPs just aren't designed to be mass multimedia juggernauts that the IPs owned by the Walt Disney Company are. And the Walt Disney Company has decided to shy away from more adult and serious fare (like R-rated comedies, serious drama projects like Captain Philips, and hardcore sci-fi like District 9) in favor of projects that have more mass appeal (think Avengers, Toy Story, Frozen, Star Wars, etc.).

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.

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.

 

[Mr.M]

So that's why Skyfall is the highest grossing Bond movie and is one of the most critically acclaimed? In North America (the most important film market), the Bond franchise has only seen box office grosses increase ever since they rebooted. Not only that, but considering that the Bond franchise is a 20+ movie franchise that has seen some really bad lows, how can you even possibly conceive that the Bond Reboot series has been milked.

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

 

[Orba]

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.

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

 

[Orba]

I was thinking about the synopsis and realised that once again we have information coming from sources other than Fox themselves. In this case Rotten Tomatoes posted the synopsis which made Fox admit that it was genuine. Once again Fox only talk about this film when forced to.

So as a game I figured I would ask when people think Fox planned to release the synopsis?





I will say I'm surprised that the Fox lawyers weren't out with the takedown orders, that has been their answer to ever other leak from this production.