The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - - Part 11

[Stark Bauer]

Cool! Thanks for sharing. I don't think I've seen any of these.

Neither have I. Until today. I was googling thing vs Hulk MCU and that's how it started

 

[UltimatePyro9]

Marvel handed over Sony full control of the Spider-Man live film rights so they could get all the merchandising rights. That worked out for them in the long run. I don't think it's a terrible, awful deal at all.

They weren't going to regain those X-Men character rights anyway at the time. This was probably they could best deal they could make.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's terrible for them.

I agree. Merchandising is worth a lot more than film rights. Especially since Spider-Man merchandise sells more than Batman, Superman and Avengers stuff. And hey, Spider-Man still appeared in the MCU, so it still worked out in the end (spinoffs notwithstanding).

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Neither have I. Until today. I was googling thing vs Hulk MCU and that's how it started

Nice find! Someone needs to hang those up in Feige's office just to remind him.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

They need someone to test out the market before it crashes. Like a crash test dummy. Where can we find one of them?

You know, this image popped into my mind at 3 am and made me think of something.

Since the start of this rumor, I've been perplexed by some people's willingness to believe that, based on just 2 words, Fox has completely shifted course and decided to give us Fantastic Four Annual #2.

What in their words or history indicate they have any interest in giving us what we want?

Isn't it far more likely that when Fox says they're now going to do a Dr. Doom film that they're going to pick up where Fant4stic left off?

When we think "Dr. Doom", we think of the real Doom. When Fox thinks of Dr. Doom, they think of the image above.

It's very likely that the Dr. Doom film Noah Hawley is develping will use the Doom from Fant4stic and show us the events after and/or before Fant4stic.

Simon Kinberg has made it clear he'd like to continue with those characters and he has a lot of say now. What real evidence do we have that Fox isn't planning to continue Fant4stic but with a focus on Doom instead of the FF?

And even if it isn't that same Doom, it's far more likely than not that the Doom we'll get won't be the Doom we want. We can't ignore history and assume it just doesn't exist.

 

[Dark Raven]

Keep Hope Alive!

John Gallagher.

This is his Fantastic Four (and Silver Surfer) vs Galactus

Silver Surfer By Gallagher (this would not be out of place in a GOTG movie imho)

Doctor Doom By Gallagher

Those pics are awesome. Too bad we'll never see anything like that on film.

I would've loved a proper FF vs Galactus like in the scene depicted above, and not some giant gas cloud. Realistically though, it would have to be the whole of the MCU and FF vs Galactus, considering the being that he is.

Doom looks positively regal and how he should look. Not the kind that we've been given so far.

 

[Dark Raven]

You know, this image popped into my mind at 3 am and made me think of something.

Since the start of this rumor, I've been perplexed by some people's willingness to believe that, based on just 2 words, Fox has completely shifted course and decided to give us Fantastic Four Annual #2.

What in their words or history indicate they have any interest in giving us what we want?

Isn't it far more likely that when Fox says they're now going to do a Dr. Doom film that they're going to pick up where Fant4stic left off?

When we think "Dr. Doom", we think of the real Doom. When Fox thinks of Dr. Doom, they think of the image above.

It's very likely that the Dr. Doom film Noah Hawley is develping will use the Doom from Fant4stic and show us the events after and/or before Fant4stic.

Simon Kinberg has made it clear he'd like to continue with those characters and he has a lot of say now. What real evidence do we have that Fox isn't planning to continue Fant4stic but with a focus on Doom instead of the FF?

And even if it isn't that same Doom, it's far more likely than not that the Doom we'll get won't be the Doom we want. We can't ignore history and assume it just doesn't exist.

Well if they use a completely different Doom, they'd have to be outright admitting that Fant4stic was a mistake, when they insisted at the time that it wasn't and that it was what they (particularly Kinberg) thought was the right idea.

And what about all those FFINO defenders who liked Crash Test Dummy Doom? Shouldn't they want to see more of him rather than the real Doom?

Maybe we'll finally get his life as Domashev the anti-social blogger as we were promised.

 

[wobbly]

It is pretty obvious that's it. If they did get anything besides participation from the TV shows, it was just certain characters, either from FF or from X-Men (i.e. SS, Galactus, Storm, etc). Or something else as well, i.e. a change in the terms of the contract. Instead of 6 years 11 months to start production on FF, have it be 3 years 9 months like Spiderman and possibly XMen. Instead of getting 2% of the gross for X-Men movies - and possibly FF - get 5% like apparently what they get for Deadpool. Instead of 100,000 extension make it a couple of million of dollars to extend + adjusted for inflation and at certain times (licensees have to pay Marvel a fee after a movie is released to extend the rights to its fullest. X-Men's original fee was 100K to extend (lol). There's no reason to believe that value is any different today).

Those changes above are things I would see that would make sense to Marvel/Disney.

Yup. Like I said before, Disney were in a position to negotiate more than a stake in the shows. I cant rule out that they didn't use their weight to get more but it seems wasteful at best to me if they did walk out of those negotiations and only had some extra bucks from a stake in them to show for it.

At the least I'd have thought they'd have gone after some favourable changes to the old deals.

Its baffling to say the least to us all. I cant believe the terms of this deal has not been disclosed yet. If it were something major you would think it would have been leaked by trades.

Granting Fox these shows puts them in competition aganst Disney own networks. Just for a piece of the action? I still want to believe theres more because makes little sense to me. These FF announcements have flatlined a lot of my hopes. Call it a game of chicken from Fox. I dont buy the Fantastic kids but that Doom movie on the cheap could happen.

Think about it. We still don't know a ton of the terms on the deals made 20 years ago. Nor do the trades. If one thing has been consistent with these deals is that Fox & Marvel seldom give out info on them unless they have to (Mutant X lawsuit) or someone let's a detail slip (Deadpool's writer on the Ego trade). Reversion deadlines? we are still best guessing them decades on.

So if we and the trades still don't know some major details on 20 year old deals with Marvel & Fox it's not out of bounds that we aint gonna know everything that made the TV deal happen.

 

[First Avenger]

Nice find! Someone needs to hang those up in Feige's office just to remind him.

Just tweeted him the Hulk vs Thing image. It doesn't matter but whatever.

 

[Dark Raven]

Just tweeted him the Hulk vs Thing image. It doesn't matter but whatever.

You should tweet him FF vs Galactus too. And Doom. Then tweet him crash test dummy Doom just to remind him of what Fox produces.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Those pics are awesome. Too bad we'll never see anything like that on film.

I would've loved a proper FF vs Galactus like in the scene depicted above, and not some giant gas cloud. Realistically though, it would have to be the whole of the MCU and FF vs Galactus, considering the being that he is.

Doom looks positively regal and how he should look. Not the kind that we've been given so far.

Honestly, if Fox showed up at a convention with that (minus the Hulk) as their production art for their upcoming Doom/FF films, I'd give them a chance.

But they absolutely refuse to do that. It's not a secret, it's all right there in the comic books, but they actually put effort and money into making the characters look different than that.

It's crazy. It's like they really don't like us and don't want to make money. Would that Thing design have cost any more to render than d***less? Would that Doom design have been more expensive than garbage bag Doom?

That Doom could be done with real armor that wouldn't break the budget of any reasonably budgeted film and The Thing in Fant4stic was CGI anyway, so just make him look like that.

Just open a comic book and there's your production design. Is it really that freakin' difficult?

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Just tweeted him the Hulk vs Thing image. It doesn't matter but whatever.

Retweeted.

 

[First Avenger]

Retweeted.

We are like don Quixote on these boards. :P

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

We are like don Quixote on these boards. :P

 

[WeaponXCII]

Think about it. We still don't know a ton of the terms on the deals made 20 years ago. Nor do the trades. If one thing has been consistent with these deals is that Fox & Marvel seldom give out info on them unless they have to (Mutant X lawsuit) or someone let's a detail slip (Deadpool's writer on the Ego trade). Reversion deadlines? we are still best guessing them decades on.

So if we and the trades still don't know some major details on 20 year old deals with Marvel & Fox it's not out of bounds that we aint gonna know everything that made the TV deal happen.

Despite being aware of the concept of the reversion deadlines for years (obviously), only just now have I questioned why we, the general public, don't know what the durations of these reversion periods are. Clearly, at least to me, the lengths of these reversion periods are being deliberately kept unrevealed, rather than just not being discussed, and thus probably part of an NDA. So, what's the tangible advantage- for either Marvel or one of the other leasee companies- of not divulging such information? Only thing I can think of is to prevent an en masse boycott strategy from people like us, but I'm not so sure.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Despite being aware of the concept of the reversion deadlines for years (obviously), only just now have I questioned why we, the general public, don't know what the durations of these reversion periods are. Clearly, at least to me, the lengths of these reversion periods are being deliberately kept unrevealed, rather than just not being discussed, and thus probably part of an NDA. So, what's the tangible advantage- for either Marvel or one of the other leasee companies- of not divulging such information? Only thing I can think of is to prevent an en masse boycott strategy from people like us, but I'm not so sure.

I think, as a general rule, people involved don't like to discuss legal details, because discussing legal details can lead to potential legal liability. Plus the details are probably complicated and open to interpretation. Lawyers don't tend to be a chatty bunch.

It's just safer for anyone involved to not discuss details - and people like Feige probably only know the broad strokes.

Based on everything I've read over the past 20 years, I feel reasonably comfortable in approximating the FF deal as this:

Production (principle photography) must begin within 7 years of last film's release or the rights will revert, and the finished film must be broadly distributed within 8.5 years of the last film's release or the rights will revert.

That would mean production of a new film would have to begin by August 7, 2022, and while that may not be exact, I'd bet it's pretty darn close.

 

[wobbly]

Despite being aware of the concept of the reversion deadlines for years (obviously), only just now have I questioned why we, the general public, don't know what the durations of these reversion periods are. Clearly, at least to me, the lengths of these reversion periods are being deliberately kept unrevealed, rather than just not being discussed, and thus probably part of an NDA. So, what's the tangible advantage- for either Marvel or one of the other leasee companies- of not divulging such information? Only thing I can think of is to prevent an en masse boycott strategy from people like us, but I'm not so sure.

I'd think NDA's are all over these things. I'd guess there's clauses that should any party break the NDA on potentially sensitive details there might be financial penalties (possibly quite hefty) and that could be the chief reason why no-one in the know talks about them in anything but broad terms.

I'd doubt the reason for any NDA was to avoid a potential boycott as I cant see that being on their minds when the deals were drawn up back in the 90's, but with things as they are now keeping the reversion deadlines hush hush is naturally more of a concern to Fox.

 

[Dark Raven]

I think, as a general rule, people involved don't like to discuss legal details, because discussing legal details can lead to potential legal liability. Plus the details are probably complicated and open to interpretation. Lawyers don't tend to be a chatty bunch.

It's just safer for anyone involved to not discuss details - and people like Feige probably only know the broad strokes.

Based on everything I've read over the past 20 years, I feel reasonably comfortable in approximating the FF deal as this:

Production (principle photography) must begin within 7 years of last film's release or the rights will revert, and the finished film must be broadly distributed within 8.5 years of the last film's release or the rights will revert.

That would mean production of a new film would have to begin by August 7, 2022, and while that may not be exact, I'd bet it's pretty darn close.

We here in this thread over the past few years have probably discussed more legal details than any of the lawyers for either side.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

We here in this thread over the past few years have probably discussed more legal details than any of the lawyers for either side.

Things have gotten pretty yech with legalese at times.

 

[InCali]

Someone earlier said that Marvel already owned SM merch rights at the time of the Sony-Marvel deal. What I read seems to indicate otherwise. Getting those merch rights sounds like a much better deal than I previously imagined. Do we know the details about this?

If they do a Doom movie (prequel or sequel), I don't know where that ends or starts because I didn't see FFINO and there are a lot of us out there. Given that, it seems like a rather silly idea. Why make a prequel or a sequel to a movie hardly anyone has seen? That sounds downright weird to me.

 

[TheVileOne]

Sony probably got a cut or piece of Spider-Man merchandising relating to the films and likely for Spectacular Spider-Man, which was produced by Sony.

As for Doctor Doom, I doubt the movie actually gets made, so I'm not going to panic over yet. Doesn't seem like Noah Hawley would use the same character from the 2015 movie either, so that's nothing to get riled up about. Nothing is ever happening with that movie again.

 

[Venom 1988]

Someone earlier said that Marvel already owned SM merch rights at the time of the Sony-Marvel deal. What I read seems to indicate otherwise. Getting those merch rights sounds like a much better deal than I previously imagined. Do we know the details about this?

Marvel acquired the Spider-Man merchandise rights back in 2011. I'll post the quote, since you may need an account to read the full transcript.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/30...-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=2

To that end, we recently completed a transaction with Sony Pictures to simplify our relationship. And in the deal, we purchased Sony Pictures' participation in Spiderman merchandising, while at the same time, Sony Pictures purchased from us our participation in Spiderman films. This transaction will allow us to control and fully benefit from all Spiderman merchandising activity, while Sony will continue to produce and distribute Spiderman films. We won't be specific about the economics of this 2-way transaction, but we expect it will drive attractive returns for Disney.

Sony was in a tight spot at the time and later regretted it lol

http://comicbook.com/marvel/2017/02...spider-man-merchandising-rights-were-short-s/

Sony probably got a cut or piece of Spider-Man merchandising relating to the films and likely for Spectacular Spider-Man, which was produced by Sony.

They did, until Marvel acquired the merchandise rights.

 

[TheVileOne]

Sony's participation in merchandising was probably anything they helped produce, so the movies and Spectacular Spider-Man.

 

[Orba]

Someone earlier said that Marvel already owned SM merch rights at the time of the Sony-Marvel deal. What I read seems to indicate otherwise. Getting those merch rights sounds like a much better deal than I previously imagined. Do we know the details about this?

Sony sold their half of the Spider-man film merchandise rights back to Marvel around 2011 for cash during one of Sony's many attempts to get back in the black. If I remember a few months back Sony admitted that it was a mistake, trading a long-term cash flow for a short-term cash injection. And yeah it was a mistake, Marvel made more from the ASM2 merchandising than Sony made from the film itself. Its been estimated that over $1 Billion worth of Spider-Man merchandise are sold every year which is more that Batman and Superman combined.

 

[wobbly]

Actually Sony sold all of their stake in Spider-Man merch in 2011.

Form Iger himself on the deal:

"To that end, we recently completed a transaction with Sony Pictures to simplify our relationship. And then in the deal, we purchased Sony Pictures' participation in Spiderman merchandising, while at the same time, Sony Pictures purchased from us our participation in Spiderman films. This transaction will allow us to control and fully benefit from all Spiderman merchandising activity, while Sony will continue to produce and distribute Spiderman films. We won't be specific about the economics of this 2-way transaction, but we expect it will drive attractive returns for Disney."​

 

[Spiderine]

Actually Sony sold all of their stake in Spider-Man merch in 2011.

Form Iger himself on the deal:

"To that end, we recently completed a transaction with Sony Pictures to simplify our relationship. And then in the deal, we purchased Sony Pictures' participation in Spiderman merchandising, while at the same time, Sony Pictures purchased from us our participation in Spiderman films. This transaction will allow us to control and fully benefit from all Spiderman merchandising activity, while Sony will continue to produce and distribute Spiderman films. We won't be specific about the economics of this 2-way transaction, but we expect it will drive attractive returns for Disney."​

Didnt Marvel also get thr animated rights back too? Which is why SSM ended?