The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - - - - - - - - - - Part 19

[Flint Marko]

It really is crazy that the Marvel rights transfer if the company gets bought out. That's just..... staggeringly inept long-term planning, let alone the paltry sum Marvel gets off each Faux-Marvel movie.

Way to go, Avi.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Legally it makes sense. The license is not transferable to another company, but if someone buys FOX itself, the rights are not technically transferring to another company. They will still be at FOX. Sucks, but legally it works.

 

[MasterCat]

There is nothing tht tells me that Feige can't do that to Cap Marvel, Kamala, Nova or Eternals. Nothing. THat is the reality. The MCU doesn't need the 4.

Pride goeth before a fall. I can easily see the Eternals or Kamala blowing up in their faces. Eternals is the more likely of the two to make big money, but it's also a bigger risk because the Celestials landing on Earth would be such a huge event that other franchises will have to mention it until a sequel is released to wrap them up, whether the first makes $800 million or loses money.

 

[honestbharani]

U mean like how GotG or Dr. Strange blew up in their faces?

 

[MasterCat]

U mean like how GotG or Dr. Strange blew up in their faces?

This is exactly what "pride goeth before a fall" means, this attitude that "Guardians of the Galaxy were nobodies who made big money, so since we have a library of 7,000 characters we can start 7,000 franchises and NONE OF THEM WILL EVER FLOP!"
Eventually one of these launches will lose money. Will it be the Eternals? Not necessarily; if they do a direct adaptation of Jack Kirby's comic it'll be like Indiana Jones Meets Kaiju (who are here to do science before judging us like gods). Will it be Kamala? That has a significantly higher probability. Will it be, I dunno, Werewolf by Night?

 

[Flint Marko]

I mean.... one of these movies is going to fail eventually, that's just probability and no one can keep up a hot streak like this for too long.

But at this point I think singling out one property and going "that's the one!" is just completely futile. Marvel has proven they can make anything work. That's not pride, that's a fact. So yes, they will fail eventually but there's absolutely no telling what property it would be.

 

[MbJ]

It really is crazy that the Marvel rights transfer if the company gets bought out. That's just..... staggeringly inept long-term planning, let alone the paltry sum Marvel gets off each Faux-Marvel movie.

Way to go, Avi.

To be fair, that was the way things were done in Hollywood back in the 90s. You licensed your property for a fee in hopes that the movies would help drive comic and merchandise sales by bringing wider interest to your property. The idea that a comic book company would one day be in a position to launch its own movie studio to make films themselves was completely unheard of. Especially since Marvel was bankrupt at the time.

Will it be Kamala? That has a significantly higher probability.

I don't think so. Especially since you don't need to spend a huge amount of money on a Ms. Marvel movie.

 

[MasterCat]

But at this point I think singling out one property and going "that's the one!" is just completely futile. Marvel has proven they can make anything work. That's not pride, that's a fact. So yes, they will fail eventually but there's absolutely no telling what property it would be.

I never disagreed with that. When a new MCU franchise launches, it's a guessing game. Hope it's high quality, hope that box office actually scales with quality.

 

[Flint Marko]

To be fair, that was the way things were done in Hollywood back in the 90s. The idea that a comic book company would one day be in a position to launch its own movie studio to make films themselves was completely unheard of. Especially since Marvel was bankrupt at the time.

True, and like Spider-fan said it's apparently business as usual for a company to operate how I just described.

But I don't know, it still seems pretty crazy that he didn't ask for more given how valuable the IP's were even at the time. But hey, hindsight 20/20 I guess.

I never disagreed with that. When a new MCU franchise launches, it's a guessing game. Hope it's high quality, hope that box office actually scales with quality.

If I had to guess, Marvel's first failure is going to come in the form of a troubled production and a crew that isn't on the same page. It almost happened with The Dark World and we saw how that turned out.

 

[honestbharani]

This is exactly what "pride goeth before a fall" means, this attitude that "Guardians of the Galaxy were nobodies who made big money, so since we have a library of 7,000 characters we can start 7,000 franchises and NONE OF THEM WILL EVER FLOP!"
Eventually one of these launches will lose money. Will it be the Eternals? Not necessarily; if they do a direct adaptation of Jack Kirby's comic it'll be like Indiana Jones Meets Kaiju (who are here to do science before judging us like gods). Will it be Kamala? That has a significantly higher probability. Will it be, I dunno, Werewolf by Night?

The Incredible Hulk lost money. You don't have to go on as if you are the only one who has claimed something will flop. Everyone knows some movie in the MCU will fail eventually but everyone also knows that there is a better chance that Feige and Co. will make good movies out of any property they deem is good enough for a movie. And for some reason, that seems disagreeable to you, but you know, what you are arguing against is reason and logic. And what are you using as an ally in the argument - law of averages and chance, with zero context.

 

[Flint Marko]

The Incredible Hulk lost money. You don't have to go on as if you are the only one who has claimed something will flop. Everyone knows some movie in the MCU will fail eventually but everyone also knows that there is a better chance that Feige and Co. will make good movies out of any property they deem is good enough for a movie. And for some reason, that seems disagreeable to you, but you know, what you are arguing against is reason and logic. And what are you using as an ally in the argument - law of averages and chance, with zero context.

Did TIH actually lose money? I've heard that some people suspect it did, but nothing's seemingly been confirmed.

I'm betting that at this point, ten years later, it's turned a profit off of home media sales. But yeah that said, everyone has seemingly forgotten that Marvel has already had a bit of a flub. It's easily my least favorite MCU film.

 

[honestbharani]

Did TIH actually lose money? I've heard that some people suspect it did, but nothing's seemingly been confirmed.

I'm betting that at this point, ten years later, it's turned a profit off of home media sales. But yeah that said, everyone has seemingly forgotten that Marvel has already had a bit of a flub. It's easily my least favorite MCU film.

Well, the reported budget was $150M and it made like $275M so I am pretty sure it lost money at least within its theatrical gross. I also think no SH movie ever made can lose money once you factor in toy sales, and other merchandising etc.

 

[MasterCat]

Did TIH actually lose money? I've heard that some people suspect it did, but nothing's seemingly been confirmed.

Logically it must have, as its global gross was less than 2x its budget.
The way distributor's cuts work, the first Captain America (176 megabucks domestic / 2 + 194 foreign / 3?) would have netted 88 + 65 = $153 million for the studio on a $140 million budget. That's why guessing the right budgets for these new franchises is so important. I wouldn't be surprised if choosing budgets is half of Feige's job and the other half is being a fan of the comics.

 

[Infinity9999x]

So what exactly is the status between the Disney and Fox offers? I’ve heard conflicting reports, some saying that the straight cash deal is a better offer, others saying that the Disney offer which would include stocks could actually be more lucrative in the long run.

 

[MasterCat]

So what exactly is the status between the Disney and Fox offers? I’ve heard conflicting reports, some saying that the straight cash deal is a better offer, others saying that the Disney offer which would include stocks could actually be more lucrative in the long run.

Stock is always more lucrative "in the long run" unless the corporation is going to tank. That's not what investors look at.
18% more in cash means you can buy 18% more of whatever stock you want, or an index fund, which is safer than Disney or any other single stock. This is complicated by the fact that an all-stock offer defers capital gains tax, and by the fact that the Murdochs want to continue being on the board of an entertainment corp after "losing" 21st Century Fox.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I mean.... one of these movies is going to fail eventually, that's just probability and no one can keep up a hot streak like this for too long.

But at this point I think singling out one property and going "that's the one!" is just completely futile. Marvel has proven they can make anything work. That's not pride, that's a fact. So yes, they will fail eventually but there's absolutely no telling what property it would be.

For all we know, Marvel's first failure could end up being Fantastic Four. Now wouldn't that be sad.

 

[Flint Marko]

For all we know, Marvel's first failure could end up being Fantastic Four. Now wouldn't that be sad.

 

[Spider-Fan]

For all we know, Marvel's first failure could end up being Fantastic Four. Now wouldn't that be sad.

You shut your face!!!!

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

For all we know, Marvel's first failure could end up being Fantastic Four. Now wouldn't that be sad.

There are moments I'm absolutely certain this will be the case.

So far, everything that could possibly go wrong with FF has. It seems to be a cursed property.

 

[Bach]

For all we know, Marvel's first failure could end up being Fantastic Four. Now wouldn't that be sad.

People said the same about GOTG, people said the same about Ant-Man, people said the same about Doctor Strange. What do all these movies have in common? They proved people wrong.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Yeah that doesn't really mean it won't happen though. Things are going well at the moment.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

For all we know, Marvel's first failure could end up being Fantastic Four. Now wouldn't that be sad.

And for all we know, it could be the best franchise they ever put out

What a fun game this is

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

People said the same about GOTG, people said the same about Ant-Man, people said the same about Doctor Strange. What do all these movies have in common? They proved people wrong.

That's the point. We don't know.

 

[MasterCat]

Speaking of new franchises, which comics Avengers are still untapped who started as solo heroes rather than in the pages of Avengers?

Hercules (actually started out on Earth as a Thor supporting character, which I'd actually be more excited to see than a cold launch.)
Patsy Walker!
Tigra
She-Hulk (we're never getting this film)
Moon Knight
Quasar
Machine Man
Spider-Women
Captain Britain
The Sentry
... Then in 2010 they inducted Nova Dick Rider and a bunch of solo heroes who are on Netflix now.

 

[Docker2.0]

Speaking of new franchises, which comics Avengers are still untapped who started as solo heroes rather than in the pages of Avengers?

Hercules (actually started out on Earth as a Thor supporting character, which I'd actually be more excited to see than a cold launch.)
Patsy Walker!
Tigra
She-Hulk (we're never getting this film)
Moon Knight
Quasar
Machine Man
Spider-Women
Captain Britain
The Sentry
... Then in 2010 they inducted Nova Dick Rider and a bunch of solo heroes who are on Netflix now.

I think Hercules and Cho would be a better tv show, ala the Hulk in the 70's. But as far as movies, Machine Man and Moon Knight seem to be the properties that can shine with a lower budget. I like Quasar for Guardians of the Galaxy and the Sentry could be good if he's depowered some.