The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 23

[Willie Lumpkin]

That article gets off to a rough start. She makes a factually inaccurate statement in the very first sentence.

That did have me checking the date to try to determine if it was an old article.

 

[Smurphftw]

That did have me checking the date to try to determine if it was an old article.

I did the same thing. Then I double checked to make sure Avengers 4 was still coming out April of next year. It is

 

[WeaponXCII]

I'd argue that Fox's adaptations are so removed from the original story and barely scratches the surface of it that Marvel Studios can do their take on it and it'll be radically different enough to distinguish it from the Fox versions. They can always rebrand the movies to further get away from the Phoenix connotation even if it's still technically involves the Phoenix.

Exactly. It's like when MCU detractors say that all the movies are the same because they're about the hero going against the villain, who is a sort of dark mirror of the hero- when that's actually a trope that has lasted decades, or the complaint that the plotlines are too similar, when they're just using elements of the Hero's Journey.

Marvel Studios could do a variety of things to distance themselves from the Fox versions: not rushing to the Dark Phoenix storyline before the Phoenix one; not having (Dark) Phoenix be a split personality, and instead actually a cosmic being; not cutting away when they could show an iconic panel; not ****ing killing Cyclops. And that was just what I was able to think of in a couple minutes. Hell, they don't even need to do their own take on it to distinguish themselves- just do the comics' take on it.

There are so many ways they could do it and still keep it fresh. Tell me this wouldn't look awesome seeing it on the big screen for the first time. That it would look "repetitive"....

 

[Detective Conan]

Am I the only one who’s bothered whenever someone refers to the Marvel characters under Fox’s ownership as ‘Fox characters? — don’t get me wrong I know it’s a shorthand for the Marvel characters currently owned by Fox but I don’t know it just bugs me.

I know this sounds petty and minor but I don’t know why it bugs me.

 

[Crimz]

Am I the only one who’s bothered whenever someone refers to the Marvel characters under Fox’s ownership as ‘Fox characters? — don’t get me wrong I know it’s a shorthand for the Marvel characters currently owned by Fox but I don’t know it just bugs me.

I know this sounds petty and minor but I don’t know why it bugs me.

Yeah it can be a bit grating, but the good thing is that it will all be over soon.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I did the same thing. Then I double checked to make sure Avengers 4 was still coming out April of next year. It is

Like when you think it's Friday and someone tells you it's only Wednesday.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Am I the only one who’s bothered whenever someone refers to the Marvel characters under Fox’s ownership as ‘Fox characters? — don’t get me wrong I know it’s a shorthand for the Marvel characters currently owned by Fox but I don’t know it just bugs me.

I know this sounds petty and minor but I don’t know why it bugs me.

I actually don't like when people say "The characters Fox owns" (and you used "ownership" yourself ) because Fox doesn't own them. They just license them and are only allowed to use them under carefully restricted conditions.

I still think Marvel should have sued Fox for breach of contract after Fant4stic. I haven't read the contract, but I have to believe there's something in there that would prevent such a misuse that could have been argued in court if they wanted to badly enough.

How fun would that have been:

"Exhibit one, you'll notice everybody's favorite bashful blue-eyed superhero not only has no pants, but his beans and franks are also glaringly absent."

 

[Spider-Fan]

Marvel would have had no legal ground to stand on. They licenses the characters out to FOX, so they had no say in their use. Marvel didn't give those up in a way a JK Rowling did. They made that contract when they were desperate for money.

 

[Dark Raven]

I actually don't like when people say "The characters Fox owns" (and you used "ownership" yourself ) because Fox doesn't own them. They just license them and are only allowed to use them under carefully restricted conditions.

I still think Marvel should have sued Fox for breach of contract after Fant4stic. I haven't read the contract, but I have to believe there's something in there that would prevent such a misuse that could have been argued in court if they wanted to badly enough.

How fun would that have been:

"Exhibit one, you'll notice everybody's favorite bashful blue-eyed superhero not only has no pants, but his beans and franks are also glaringly absent."

Don't worry. Marvel are not only getting their crown jewels back with the Fox acquisition, but Ben Grimm is getting his family jewels back.

 

[Detective Conan]

I actually don't like when people say "The characters Fox owns" (and you used "ownership" yourself ) because Fox doesn't own them. They just license them and are only allowed to use them under carefully restricted conditions.

This is quite a good point. Fox never really ‘owned’ the characters unlike Marvel which will soon own all of its library. t:

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Marvel would have had no legal ground to stand on. They licenses the characters out to FOX, so they had no say in their use. Marvel didn't give those up in a way a JK Rowling did. They made that contract when they were desperate for money.

First off, any license is going to have restrictions. No matter how desperate they were, lawyers would have been involved and language would have been included that would prevent, for example, Johnny being portrayed as a pedophile or something else that would damage the characters and brand.

Secondly, when people have asked "How can you prevent the Roger Corman situation from happening again?" People in the know (I believe Avi Arad was at least one who commentd) told us that a quality clause was included when the rights were transferred from Constantin to Fox.

We don't know the exact wording, but conveniently, we do have a specific quality clause from a contract that would have been written right around the same time likely by some of the same lawyers for the theme park rights:

http://www.insideuniversal.net/2016...ct-what-rights-does-universal-and-disney-own/

That contract states:

Each THE MARVEL UNIVERSE shall be operated and maintained in a first class manner consistent with the highest standards of the theme park industry and shall be deemed “open” only when operated in such manner (subject to temporary closures for force majeure events as described in the prior paragraph).

At such time as any THE MARVEL UNIVERSE is no longer open at a particular Universal Theme Park, all exclusivity and marketing rights acquired by MCA as a result of the opening of such THE MARVEL UNIVERSE at such Universal Theme Park, as set forth in Section IV below, shall terminate and this Agreement shall thereafter be construed as if the notice of intent to open THE MARVEL UNIVERSE had not been given by MCA.

With that specific statement in mind, I have speculated that the language in the film contract could look something like:

Each FANTASTIC FOUR FILM shall be produced and distributed in a first class manner consistent with the highest standards of the film industry. If a FANTASTIC FOUR FILM is produced that is not consistent with that standard all exclusivity and marketing rights acquired by Fox as a result of releasing FANTASTIC FOUR FILMS, as set forth in Section IV below, shall terminate and this Agreement shall thereafter be construed as if the notice of intent to allow production of FANTASTIC FOUR FILMS had not been given by MCA.

That is clearly intentionally vague language that would be a double-edged sword in court. It would be hard to point to one specific thing as a clear violation, but a skilled lawyer should be able to use that language and Fant4stic and make a case.

Remember all the rumors about Josh Trank both before and during production? Those are only rumors at this point, but Disney lawyers would have the power to subpoena people who had been involved and ask specific questions like: "Were you considering replacing Josh Trank? Why didn't you replace him? When there were clearly problems during production, why did you continue without bringing in a different, experienced director?"

We've heard about ugliness on set with things like Trank hiding out and not talking to anyone and leaving the crew to film without him along with things like him (apparently thinking he was Hitchcock) intentionally abusing Kate Mara so she would feel "invisible". And the attitude and tweets from the cast after the film had been released seemed to indicate there was some ugliness and bad blood. Swear them in, get them on the stand and find out what really happened.

No matter what the specific wording of the contract is, I'm certain a qualified lawyer could make a strong case that Fant4stic was an inexcusable misuse of the license that damaged the characters OWNED by Marvel/Disney.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Ugliness on set is not something you have a legal hold on though if you're Marvel. That's a studio situation, and FOX even had the film reshot without Trank. So even on that merit, not much to go on. Character portrayel, maybe more say. But while they were poorly used, what in Fan4stic was offensive to the characters? Poorly done and offensive are not the same thing. The core concept was still preserved in the movie. What was off was tone and execution. That is not a violation of anything. By that token, any studio could be sued by someone simply cause they made a bad movie. Using the pedophile example holds no water here because Fan4stic didn't do any of that. It just sucked.

 

[Dark Raven]

First off, any license is going to have restrictions. No matter how desperate they were, lawyers would have been involved and language would have been included that would prevent, for example, Johnny being portrayed as a pedophile or something else that would damage the characters and/or brand.

What happens in the case of Ultimate versions of the characters were Cap is a racist flag waver, Hank Pym is a serial wife abuser, Hulk is a cannibal, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are a pair of incestuous twins etc?

And what about even in the regular 616 universe where Tony Stark was a regular alcoholic or people think that Hank Pym was also a wife abuser?

What if those portrayals were presented on film as in the comics? Say if Fox had these characters instead of the FF or X-Men. Would that be seen as damaging the brand or remaining faithful to the actual comic storylines?

 

[Spider-Fan]

What happens in the case of Ultimate versions of the characters were Cap is a racist flag waver, Hank Pym is a serial wife abuser, Hulk is a cannibal, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are a pair of incestuous twins etc?

And what about even in the regular 616 universe where Tony Stark was a regular alcoholic or people think that Hank Pym was also a wife abuser?

What if those portrayals were presented on film as in the comics? Say if Fox had these characters instead of the FF or X-Men. Would that be seen as damaging the brand or remaining faithful to the actual comic storylines?

Legally I think FOX would win because it comes directly from the source material they're using. In your presented scenario.

 

[WeaponXCII]

Willie had a very fitting quote on this issue a while back, which I found extremely clever and insightful, and which I go back and read now and then:

"There are an infinite number of ways they can do the FF, but based on what Marvel has done with their other characters, I trust that they will look at the gestalt and do something that captures the key elements that have defined the FF over the past nearly 60 years.

Unlike Fox, I think Marvel recognizes they can't just take one goofy element out of one story line and say: "It's 'comic accurate'. We saw in issue XXX that Reed was transformed to a ferret, so the fans can't complain if he's a ferret in this film.""

 

[Detective Conan]

On a call with analysts shortly after Fox unveiled its earnings report, Fox CEO James Murdoch said the merger is “getting to the finish line.” Fox also said it will not host a similar call during the next financial quarter due to the pending sale. That signals that final details of the merger should be wrapped up soon.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

s’happenin my dawgs

 

[Crimz]

How soon is "soon"?

It sounds so close but I won't get my hopes up.

 

[WeaponXCII]

Never before has this picture been so appropriate:

 

[Detective Conan]

That's a heck of a good question. Perhaps my celebration was a bit premature. since the deal is still under regulatory review international-wise which might mean a more lengthier 'soon' than hoped. Though the big takeaway from this for me is that we're in the homestretch and its likely the deal can close with no significant push-back from the international markets. Disney is big in China and both the Fox assets and the Disney assets are huge in China(those Chinese love those Disneyland parks and Marvel movies). The deal has already just begun the regulatory review in other markets, and they're this optimistic? So far so good.

 

[Dark Raven]

"Final details wrapped up soon"? What does that mean? That they have managed to get regulatory approval from other countries?

Do they imply that it will be sooner than the early quarter of next year? Are they ahead of schedule?

I don't know why it should take so long for approval from other countries anyway.

 

[Iceman]

Could be some exciting stuff going on behind the scenes.

 

[Iceman]

This.


The Dark Phoenix/Death of Jean Grey story is like Civil War/Death of Captain America for a lot of fans. Both have become the be-all, end-all tales for the characters and some fans can't see past that. People started rooting for Steve Rogers' death from the moment Marvel announced the first Cap movie as if his death was the sole reason for his existence. The same is sadly even more true of Jean.


Happily for the MCU, Feige and his team never saw Steve Rogers as a hero whose greatest destiny was to die in order to make way for another. I believe they'll take a longer-term view of Jean's place in the MCU, too. Many fans seem to forget, or maybe never knew, that Jean was bonded with the Phoenix for several years before it overwhelmed her. More importantly, she was a hero for years before encountering it. Rushing to that part of her story won't allow enough time for the audience to become invested in her as a person. How will we care what happens to Jean if we don't know her well enough to care about her?

Yeah. These deaths were meaningful because of how good they made the characters in the first place over many years of development, way before they had an eye on killing them. That's what the MCU should be trying to recreate rather than jumping to the end and working back a route to get there (an approach which we've seen cause issues in other films.

 

[Darkprime]

How soon is "soon"?

It sounds so close but I won't get my hopes up.

End of Q4. Most likely. Lines up with the first half of 2019 estimation from Fox. Maybe even earlier by xmas if were lucky.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I'm thinking January - March might be a reasonable window.

On one hand, they're going to want to err on the side of caution, so when they say "the first half of 2019" I think they're thinking June will be the absolute latest (they'd rather surprise people by being early than late).

But I also think that if it was likely to be by the end of the year, they'd have a pretty good idea of that by now and would have given us something more in their conference calls.

So I think probably not as early as this year, and probably not as late as June, so Jan-March is probably realistic.