The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - Part 10

[Darepool]

Agreed, I'm not comparing Fox or Marvel in terms of past or future success, it's not even close, I'm merely pointing out that Fox has quite a bit of potential going for them in the future (other then FF). I understand Jackman will be a tall order to replace (if that's even possible), but if you roll out a great actor in the role (imagine if it was a Tom Hardy-type), then fans will soon go from saying he's 'irreplaceable' to saying 'He'll be the best Wolverine yet!' etc, etc. That's just how we roll. Especially if we actually get a comic accurate suit, that'll be all it takes to win some over. Ditto for Iron Man.

 

[Roose Bolton]

The way I see it, there's been 10 films in the FoX-Men franchise, and 7 of them have been varying degrees of good to great. We've got 3 more projects that are due next year and I can't imagine that at least one of them isn't good. I think at the very least Deadpool 2 will be commercially successful whereas New Mutants looks like it could be the one that continues the trend of the franchise pushing the genre further with the horror angle.

 

[InCali]

The way I see it, there's been 10 films in the FoX-Men franchise, and 7 of them have been varying degrees of good to great. We've got 3 more projects that are due next year and I can't imagine that at least one of them isn't good. I think at the very least Deadpool 2 will be commercially successful whereas New Mutants looks like it could be the one that continues the trend of the franchise pushing the genre further with the horror angle.

I can see that. I'm pretty sure we agree on the 3 and that's not really too bad if you think about it. As Darepool said, there's definitely potential there, but they need to get this right going forward without their one sure fire bankable star (even Origins did almost 200M DOM which is crazy).

Willie L was saying that if X has problems, Fox "might" focus on FF (a bad thing IMO) so I'm rooting for X. I genuinely liked 1, 2, FC, and DoFP. Those are my favorites.

 

[NealKenneth]

I dunno...if Fox can't get anything going with the X-Men, I find it hard to believe that they'd pull the FF lever again. This may seem crazy to people, but honestly they would just sell all the rights off at that point. No use throwing good money after bad money.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

People should be rooting for Fox to have success with Xmen and its spinoffs. Less room or need for F4 and Marvel can get it back.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

People should be rooting for Fox to have success with Xmen and its spinoffs. Less room or need for F4 and Marvel can get it back.

I am. Unfortunately that's like rooting for the Cleveland Browns.

"With the first pick overall, Fox selects ...


Simon Kinberg."

 

[InCali]

I am. Unfortunately that's like rooting for the Cleveland Browns.

"With the first pick overall, Fox selects ...


Simon Kinberg."

Should they trade down for Trank?

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Should they trade down for Trank?

I'd trade down for anybody - including Trank. I honestly can't think of a single director I'd trust less than Kinberg. Whoever directed Catwoman? Sure, why not. Let's give him/her a try.

 

[Endeavor]

Vile, and anyone else who could have some insight on the legal side of the entertainment business... Take what's happened recently with Spidey, Pascal's comments about the Venom and BC spin-offs being connected. Let's assume that those statements were not made with both companies being in agreement (you could take Feige's appearance of discomfort and extrapolate that Marvel was sort of blindsided by Sony on this), could such an event be the cause of a lawsuit. Would Sony be breaching contract by announcing something that goes beyond the scope of what's written in their character sharing contract, even if you could argue that the wording was vague enough to include more than the Spidey trilogy?
Surely there must be something in there that guarantees each of the participants can safeguard their own interest from the other's mismanagement.

 

[InCali]

I'd trade down for anybody - including Trank. I honestly can't think of a single director I'd trust less than Kinberg. Whoever directed Catwoman? Sure, why not. Let's give him/her a try.

As Vincent said in Pulp Fiction....That's a Bold statement.t:

 

[Spider-Fan]

Vile, and anyone else who could have some insight on the legal side of the entertainment business... Take what's happened recently with Spidey, Pascal's comments about the Venom and BC spin-offs being connected. Let's assume that those statements were not made with both companies being in agreement (you could take Feige's appearance of discomfort and extrapolate that Marvel was sort of blindsided by Sony on this), could such an event be the cause of a lawsuit. Would Sony be breaching contract by announcing something that goes beyond the scope of what's written in their character sharing contract, even if you could argue that the wording was vague enough to include more than the Spidey trilogy?
Surely there must be something in there that guarantees each of the participants can safeguard their own interest from the other's mismanagement.

Since Sony is the owner of the Spider-Man rights and Homecoming is a Sony film (even if Marvel Studios made the movie itselr, it is Sony distributing it and still their movie), Sony is within their rights to use it in their own continuity. That said, they do not have the rights to the rest of the MCU. Therefore likely what happens here is Sony will reference Homecoming and maybe use Tom Holland in their Spider-Verse, but they cannot reference anything else MCU. Honestly, since Marvel cannot reference Spider-verse outside Homecoming and Sony can only reference Homecoming, it won't create contradictions. Feige prob will not say Pascal is a liar cause they want to keep using Spider-Man in their films, so Feige will prob just let it go for now.

 

[Endeavor]

But whether they mention the rest of the MCU in their films or not, Pascal's statements will create the perception that Venom and BC/SS are MCU movies. If those films are the regular Sony suckfest, which is likely if they are made without any Marvel input, they will be perceived by the audience as MCU failures, thus damaging the brand. Wouldn't that be cause for a legal battle?

 

[Spider-Fan]

But whether they mention the rest of the MCU in their films or not, Pascal's statements will create the perception that Venom and BC/SS are MCU movies. If those films are the regular Sony suckfest, which is likely if they are made without any Marvel input, they will be perceived by the audience as MCU failures, thus damaging the brand. Wouldn't that be cause for a legal battle?

Except she never said that it takes place in the MCU. Her wording was it takes place in the world we are creating for Peter Parker. Which makes Venom a spinoff of Homecoming, which legally they can do. If the movie bombs hard, Marvem prob could sue for damages, but they will not win cause Sony legally can make spinoffs to Homecoming.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Vile, and anyone else who could have some insight on the legal side of the entertainment business... Take what's happened recently with Spidey, Pascal's comments about the Venom and BC spin-offs being connected. Let's assume that those statements were not made with both companies being in agreement (you could take Feige's appearance of discomfort and extrapolate that Marvel was sort of blindsided by Sony on this), could such an event be the cause of a lawsuit. Would Sony be breaching contract by announcing something that goes beyond the scope of what's written in their character sharing contract, even if you could argue that the wording was vague enough to include more than the Spidey trilogy?
Surely there must be something in there that guarantees each of the participants can safeguard their own interest from the other's mismanagement.

I don't think it would be a lawsuit - unless Sony pushed through and said/did things that Marvel warned them they shouldn't do (such as mentioning a character - Iron Man for example - in Venom that is part of the MCU reality but not Sony's reality).

There's plenty of time, at this point, for both sides to work out details and decide what Sony is and isn't allowed to do.

Hopefully the result will be that Sony will decide "Yeah, we really do want these characters as part of one reality in the MCU." and then they and Marvel can work out how that will happen.

But if Sony really does want to do it independently they and Marvel can discuss specific things they'll have to avoid.

Bottom line, her comment may have opened up a discussion (or continued one that was happening behind the scenes), but there probably won't be a lawsuit because they're talking about it now - not after release.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Another thing to note is maybe Feige is not expressimg horror or looking surprised because that was not part of their deal. He could be surprised she is saying this publicly before she was supposed to.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

But whether they mention the rest of the MCU in their films or not, Pascal's statements will create the perception that Venom and BC/SS are MCU movies. If those films are the regular Sony suckfest, which is likely if they are made without any Marvel input, they will be perceived by the audience as MCU failures, thus damaging the brand. Wouldn't that be cause for a legal battle?

Realistically, people like us are the only ones reading the comments now, and we'll know full well the situation by the time the film comes out.

With people who don't pay as much attention, there may be some confusion, but as long as Sony doesn't directly market it as part of the MCU and as long as they stay within the lines on all technical details (and long as they're more careful with future statements) the confusion will be what it is.

I'm sure there are some casual viewers out there who think Deadpool - or even X-Men - are part of the MCU, but that doesn't do any real damage as long as the studios are properly handling the IP.

Marvel gets a cut and Marvel gets toy sales etc., so as long as people are seeing the films, Marvel is making money. Their only real motivation is to not let Sony get away with directly associating themselves with the MCU in the content of the film in a way that they would have to pay for if they actually had an appropriate agreement.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Another thing to note is maybe Feige is not expressimg horror or looking surprised because that was not part of their deal. He could be surprised she is saying this publicly before she was supposed to.

I was certainly hoping something like that when I read it. "Please be real and not just a slip of the tongue."

 

[Spider-Fan]

I was certainly hoping something like that when I read it. "Please be real and not just a slip of the tongue."

Same here. I want Feige and co to be involved in the process, at least a little. So hopefully he was more upset she dropped that bomb earlier than she was supposed to

 

[TheVileOne]

Vile, and anyone else who could have some insight on the legal side of the entertainment business... Take what's happened recently with Spidey, Pascal's comments about the Venom and BC spin-offs being connected. Let's assume that those statements were not made with both companies being in agreement (you could take Feige's appearance of discomfort and extrapolate that Marvel was sort of blindsided by Sony on this), could such an event be the cause of a lawsuit. Would Sony be breaching contract by announcing something that goes beyond the scope of what's written in their character sharing contract, even if you could argue that the wording was vague enough to include more than the Spidey trilogy?
Surely there must be something in there that guarantees each of the participants can safeguard their own interest from the other's mismanagement.

It's hard to really know what's legal and what isn't in this deal. But yeah, Feige did look uncomfortable when Pascal was speaking and like maybe he wasn't in 100 percent full agreement with her. But let's go back to over two years ago. Here's the original announcement on the Spider-Man deal straight from Marvel:

https://news.marvel.com/movies/2406...studios_into_the_amazing_world_of_spider-man/

Marvel and Sony Pictures are also exploring opportunities to integrate characters from the MCU into future Spider-Man films.

OK. So this announcement straight from Marvel says that both Marvel and Sony are talking about integrating other MCU characters into future Spider-Man films. Maybe the spirit of such things only means characters like Iron Man and Foggy who are in Homecoming. No idea. But doesn't this mean that other characters could appear in other Spider-Man films? Specifically, let's say Sony wants to make "Spider-Man" movies like Venom or Black Cat. Doesn't that mean those movies could be set in the MCU movies and could integrate MCU characters as well?

Also, I feel if Feige, Pascal and Sony failed to address this, that's a failing on all those parties. That being said, maybe they did talk this over and failed to come to consensus.

Here's this too:

Under the deal, the new Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film from Marvel’s Cinematic Universe (MCU). Sony Pictures will thereafter release the next installment of its $4 billion Spider-Man franchise, on July 28, 2017, in a film that will be co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel and Amy Pascal, who oversaw the franchise launch for the studio 13 years ago. Together, they will collaborate on a new creative direction for the web slinger. Sony Pictures will continue to finance, distribute, own and have final creative control of the Spider-Man films.

So at the end of the day, Sony Pictures still has final say and control over these movies. So...maybe the deal was too one-sided. Maybe it started out nice because Marvel got to use Spider-Man for Civil War and Avengers. But I dunno. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Spiderine]

Feige was pretty straight forward when he said they have NO involvement in these Sony projects. I believe that is true. They are cooperating on the two Spidey films and it ends there for now. I am under the impression Sony can make "spinoffs" or we will just say "vaguely connected" films to Spiderman. They probably can't mention anything related to MCU stories or characters but Spiderman can be mentioned all the live long day.

Sony was still free to do other films. I don't believe Peter will be showing up in them as long as the Marvel sharing deal is in place. People who have no clue will simply think its all connected which is what Sony was planning all along. They hitched a ride on the Marvel train hoping to sell their lame ass cinematic universe nobody wanted back then and not now either.

Keep in mind that venom is a 2018 project. They are only doing one more Spidey solo collaboration for the sequel in 2019. They can take Spidey out and start doing their own thing without Marvel after that. By then the damage Sony did to Spidey would be repaired or they hope. Then Sony can destroy him again.

 

[wobbly]

Edit

 

[TheVileOne]

Feige was pretty straight forward when he said they have NO involvement in these Sony projects. I believe that is true. They are cooperating on the two Spidey films and it ends there for now. I am under the impression Sony can make "spinoffs" or we will just say "vaguely connected" films to Spiderman. They probably can't mention anything related to MCU stories or characters but Spiderman can be mentioned all the live long day.

Then why is Amy Pascal saying they are set in the same world as Homecoming and essentially the MCU? Also, why would Feige and Marvel not want to be involved to at least ensure good continuity and fidelity?

Sony was still free to do other films. I don't believe Peter will be showing up in them as long as the Marvel sharing deal is in place. People who have no clue will simply think its all connected which is what Sony was planning all along. They hitched a ride on the Marvel train hoping to sell their lame ass cinematic universe nobody wanted back then and not now either.

Marvel can't really prevent Peter from showing up if that's what Sony wants. Sony still has final say on all the Spider-Man films.

Keep in mind that venom is a 2018 project. They are only doing one more Spidey solo collaboration for the sequel in 2019. They can take Spidey out and start doing their own thing without Marvel after that. By then the damage Sony did to Spidey would be repaired or they hope. Then Sony can destroy him again.

Wrong. Unless Tom Holland is lying:

https://www.facebook.com/allocine/posts/10155392386355148

“There is still a lot of room for Peter Parker and Spider-Man especially to grow in the next two movies. He’s definitely not the finished article by the end of Spider-Man: Homecoming and I really look forward to exploring the different ways he can grow up and go through puberty I guess. It’s going to be an exciting couple of movies… Yeah, there’ll be Spider-Man 2 and 3, it won’t be Homecoming 2 and 3.”

 

[UltimatePyro9]

Yeah, I'm gonna wait until there's some kind of official statement before I put stock into Venom and that Black Cat film being part of the MCU. From marvel.com or something. 'Cause I see it as Sony still trying create a shared universe (and get money) using the Spider-Man film rights while still using Marvel. Its doubtful it will work, considering Sony's 'involvement' in ASM2, but who knows? Pretty soon we'll get that 'Aunt May' movie that we always never wanted to have.

 

[dax]

With a solid plan and strategy, Fox could do amazing things, but they don't have a solid plan.

And all of the directors who have made good films (Bryan Singer, James Mangold, Tim Miller and Matthew Vaughn) have all moved on.

Yes, they could get lucky and Simon Kinberg could show us that the complete crap he has done in the past didn't really represent his capabilities, but a good studio doesn't just roll the dice and hope they get lucky. A good studio stacks the odds in their favor by hiring proven talent and giving them the resources they need.

A good studio also trusts their directors to do their jobs and they wouldn't have hired Simon Kinberg if they all felt the same way as you do.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

A good studio also trusts their directors to do their jobs and they wouldn't have hired Simon Kinberg if they all felt the same way as you do.

FOX also trusted Trank to direct a competently made Fant4stic and look how that turned out. That said, I agree that FOX trusts Kinberg more than that to do the job and direct a competently made film. Whether it will be good or not is up for speculation.