The "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) thread - Part 9

[starscream22]

People are actually buying this company line that the FF is an afterthought to Marvel? When you look at their style of films in the past few years? Wow... from a business point, I would agree that it's not necessary to put out a film if they had to pay an arm and a leg for it. But the idea that they wouldn't be green lighting FF characters in PIV or even PIII if they had the rights today is comical. I'm talking about FF movies. We wouldn't be getting Inhumans or Captain Marvel if they had FF. If you are convinced otherwise, I think you're delusional.

No, but apparently some people here are still trying to sell it...

 

[Eddie]

Had Fox not gone forward with Chronicle 2: Fantastic Four 0 I guarantee that Marvel would have either done FF in Phase 3 and used them in Infinity War or made a big thing out of putting them in Phase 4. It wouldn't have surprised me at all if they wanted them to be the focus of Phase 4, leading up to Galactus, Secret Wars, or Annihilation.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Marvel has spoken on this.

http://brevoortformspring.tumblr.co...ng-for-the-ff-movie-to-tank-so-fox-will#notes

Some of his earlier posts tonight state that he feels that the Fantastic Four aren't part of the zeitgeist, sales aren't where they should be, particularly with digital copies and collected editions and the property needs a break until it can be popular again. This man is the senior VP of publishing for Marvel.

Fact is, Marvel doesn't want the FF back that much since they don't find it to resonate with audiences right now as much as it used to. Right now Cosmic Marvel is focusing on Guardians and Inhumans which are closer to something like Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek where it's a full space opera.

Fantastic Four is a much harder sell but it might sell well considering that Gravity and Interstellar were successful. The problem is that the FF are Gravity and Intersteller crossed with Flash Gordon, Dune and 2001 and right now, that kind of sci-fi isn't what's popular. FF is too grounded for the space opera crowd and too cosmic for the fans of traditional superheroes.

And any hope that Gravity and Interstellar would make a series about Earth-based sci-fi cool again may have just been crushed with Ted Cruz announced to be the head of the budget committee for NASA and given that he wants to abolish the IRS entirely, it's likely that he'll either work to shut down the space program or at least run it into the ground out of spite. The means that people probably won't want to bother with a movie about astronauts with superpowers.

Fox isn't making this because they think it'll sell. They're making it because their contract was almost up. The only hope that Fox has for this is the international box office since China, Russia and the EU countries are still interested in space.

Honestly, Fantastic Four should feel a bit like doctor who in tone. And a reboot in the comics should be a bit like it

 

[Wise]

Fact is, Marvel doesn't want the FF back that much since they don't find it to resonate with audiences right now as much as it used to. Right now Cosmic Marvel is focusing on Guardians and Inhumans which are closer to something like Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek where it's a full space opera.

All the more reason for Marvel to push hard and try to at least get back the Silver Surfer and Galactus.

It's rumored that those rights are a separate deal and not actually tied into the F4 package.

 

[Eddie]

All the more reason for Marvel to push hard and try to at least get back the Silver Surfer and Galactus.

It's rumored that those rights are a separate deal and not actually tied into the F4 package.

They were definitely separate at one time. It's a bit unclear what the status is presently. It's possible Deadpool is also separate from X-Men. His rights used to be separate, and it's kinda odd that he just so happens to be getting a film seven years after his last appearance.

 

[Wise]

Question.

Is Marvel allowed to refuse their logo being used before this movie? Or are Fox contractually able to use it either way as part of the rights?

 

[Wise]

They were definitely separate at one time. It's a bit unclear what the status is presently. It's possible Deadpool is also separate from X-Men. His rights used to be separate, and it's kinda odd that he just so happens to be getting a film seven years after his last appearance.

If the 7 years rights thing meant that separate characters can appear in cross licensed films and retain the rights for the studio, then that would mean we'd likely see Surfer and Galactus in the Trank film.

 

[Doc Ock]

Honestly, Fantastic Four should feel a bit like doctor who in tone. And a reboot in the comics should be a bit like it

Yes, the Fantastic Four are adventurous exploring scientists. Right now Dan Slott's Silver Surfer feels like Doctor Who to me and I'm really enjoying it. Just plain adventure!

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Yes, the Fantastic Four are adventurous exploring scientists. Right now Dan Slott's Silver Surfer feels like Doctor Who to me and I'm really enjoying it. Just plain adventure!

If it were up to me the FF comic would end with them walking into a mysterious new portal or something. And they'd reappear in comics going through space and time and alternate universes and realities. Only occasionally joining earth 616. Lost in space meets doctor who

 

[Surfer]

Wait if the rights for Silver Surfer and Galactus are seperate from that of the Fantastic Four, then what steps is Fox currently taking to maintain those rights and to keep them from reverting? So, with that said I am pretty sure they are packaged together. Furthermore, if they were seperate I don't think Fox would have been able to use the Silver Surfer & Galactus in Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer without Marvel's permission. Similar to how most people believe Fox would need Marvel's permission to do a X-Men / Fantastic Four crossover.

Surfer

 

[Orba]

Question.

Is Marvel allowed to refuse their logo being used before this movie? Or are Fox contractually able to use it either way as part of the rights?

Hehe I brought this idea up a while back. Ultimately we don't really know its probably down to the contract details, Directors and Writers have all been able to have their credits removed from a film but with something like this who knows. There are lots of rules to make sure that people have their credit added to a film if they are legally entitled to it, but the details on getting credits removed is far less clear, especially with something like this. However I think that if Ike Perlmutter could get it removed he would, but we will just have to see.

If it were up to me the FF comic would end with them walking into a mysterious new portal or something. And they'd reappear in comics going through space and time and alternate universes and realities. Only occasionally joining earth 616. Lost in space meets doctor who

I always feel like they are like modern day Jules Verne stories, travelling in time, visiting unknown underground worlds, alternative dimensions. They should be the people that explore the boundary of what is possible, a step beyond science fact into science fiction. Exploring the parts of the universe for which there aren't always rational explanations.

 

[the gael]

Wait if the rights for Silver Surfer and Galactus are seperate from that of the Fantastic Four, then what steps is Fox currently taking to maintain those rights and to keep them from reverting? So, with that said I am pretty sure they are packaged together. Furthermore, if they were seperate I don't think Fox would have been able to use the Silver Surfer & Galactus in Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer without Marvel's permission. Similar to how most people believe Fox would need Marvel's permission to do a X-Men / Fantastic Four crossover.

Surfer

If the rights for SS and Galactus were separate, then, since it's 7 years from their last appearance in a movie, their rights would have reverted to Marvel. It's not the case, and they are not in the next FF movie, so...

 

[Orba]

I was thinking and the only case I can think of where a Marvel Comics adaption did not use Marvel branding is Big Hero 6 where Disney decided not to use it, but I don't know if it is a useful case.

Hehe wouldn't it be interesting if the reason that Fox are avoiding doing any marketing is that Marvel have refused to let them use the branding and Fox are trying to keep it quiet (perhaps while they try to negotiate with Disney to try to get access to the branding).

 

[Urich Leeds]

If the 7 years rights thing meant that separate characters can appear in cross licensed films and retain the rights for the studio, then that would mean we'd likely see Surfer and Galactus in the Trank film.

Surfer and Galactus are included in the FF rights package.


Their rights clock reset when the overall FF rights did.

 

[Urich Leeds]

Question.

Is Marvel allowed to refuse their logo being used before this movie? Or are Fox contractually able to use it either way as part of the rights?

I don't think its a contractual thing. At least, not in the way Marvel can't rescind their ability to use it.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I don't think its a contractual thing. At least, not in the way Marvel can't rescind their ability to use it.

Yeah, my expectation would be there would be language in the contract allowing Fox to use the logo along with their right to use likenesses of the characters etc., but I doubt it says: "In the event Marvel Doesn't like the final version of the film, they can choose to withhold the right to use the logo."

I just don't think anything like that would have been on anybody's mind. If there was a real problem, I would hope Marvel would have the right to stop production (though if they didn't stop this one, I have to imagine their options on that end are limited), but it would seem odd and petty at the time they were creating the contracts to specifically include a prevision to allow Marvel to withhold the logo.

 

[Zarex]

I'm wondering if Marvel could change the logo to further differentiate the licensed films from the MCU. Could they use "Marvel Licensing" or even "Disney Licensing" with Tinkerbill making an appearance on the title code? Can they change the iconic red logo to blue for the FOX and Sony films? I have to think that Marvel has a say in how the title card looks.

 

[JAK®]

I'm wondering if Marvel could change the logo to further differentiate the licensed films from the MCU. Could they use "Marvel Licensing" or even "Disney Licensing" with Tinkerbill making an appearance on the title code? Can they change the iconic red logo to blue for the FOX and Sony films? I have to think that Marvel has a say in how the title card looks.

Marvel Studios films say 'Marvel Studios' whereas the other films just say 'Marvel', but they're too similar for the public to know the difference.

 

[Surfer]

Surfer and Galactus are included in the FF rights package.


Their rights clock reset when the overall FF rights did.

That is what I think, but it would be nice if the rumors were true and Silver Surfer & Galactus weren't attached to Fantastic Four contract and somehow Fox was overlooking the fact those characters would be reverting soon. I don't believe it though. It's that saying if it sounds to good to be true, then it probably is.

Surfer

 

[Dark Raven]

Surfer and Galactus should've been like the rights to the Kingpin where they were only loaned to Fox for FF:ROTSS or were simply separate contracts which were crossed over at the time but wouldn't be allowed now.

How did Marvel get the rights back for Kingpin? Did it come back with DD when Marvel got him back from Fox? Or did Sony ever own Kingpin at any time?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Kingpin was with the Daredevil rights.

 

[Surfer]

Marvel Studios films say 'Marvel Studios' whereas the other films just say 'Marvel', but they're too similar for the public to know the difference.

Yeah, I agree the look is too similar that the average movie goer most likely doesn't notice the difference. Which brings up an interesting point. I wonder with Marvel Studio's creating this connective universe, how many people when they see just the Marvel logo flash (on either a Fox or Sony made movie), go to the movie expecting it to be part of that Marvel Studios connected universe. I mean we as Fans know what to expect, but I wonder if other people find it confusing why some connect while others do not when they all share the Marvel logo. Or perhaps people think the movies that have not connected just have not connected yet, but somehow will later. It's kind of a mess for people that don't understand the way it works, and frankly both Sony and Fox are riding that Marvel Logo to the bank, because people see it and many might think about the movies that have been put out by Marvel Studio's and then they go and instead get a Sony or Fox piece of crap Superhero movie. It's maddening.

Surfer

 

[Orba]

Yeah, my expectation would be there would be language in the contract allowing Fox to use the logo along with their right to use likenesses of the characters etc., but I doubt it says: "In the event Marvel Doesn't like the final version of the film, they can choose to withhold the right to use the logo."

I just don't think anything like that would have been on anybody's mind. If there was a real problem, I would hope Marvel would have the right to stop production (though if they didn't stop this one, I have to imagine their options on that end are limited), but it would seem odd and petty at the time they were creating the contracts to specifically include a prevision to allow Marvel to withhold the logo.

It probably depends on why the logo appears, if it is a production credit or if it is as you say something that comes with the contract. Credits have removed in the past by writers, directors etc so they might be able to ask for it to be removed. But if it is a right given with the contract then there is probably not much that can be done.

 

[Surfer]

Surfer and Galactus should've been like the rights to the Kingpin where they were only loaned to Fox for FF:ROTSS or were simply separate contracts which were crossed over at the time but wouldn't be allowed now.

How did Marvel get the rights back for Kingpin? Did it come back with DD when Marvel got him back from Fox? Or did Sony ever own Kingpin at any time?

Well also Fox at one point in time had plans to make a Silver Surfer movie, so I am pretty sure they owned the rights to use the character and that they were not just on loan to them for use in that one movie (Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer).

Surfer

 

[starscream22]

Marvel Studios films say 'Marvel Studios' whereas the other films just say 'Marvel', but they're too similar for the public to know the difference.

LOL, at this rate Fox might just take their name off of it and just use Marvel's.