The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - Part 4

[jaymes_e06]

Yeah no eye color shifts when to show they are Skrulls please also isn't this convo kind of unnecessary until Marvel idk... have access to them.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Yeah no eye color shifts when to show they are Skrulls please also isn't this convo kind of unnecessary until Marvel idk... have access to them.

My understanding (and I can't say it with certainty, it's just what I heard) is that Marvel has the Skrulls and FF only have Super Skrull (as crazy as that sounds).

... But this is the keep hope alive thread.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Here's a very interesting article about the Disney/Universal theme-park agreement. It doesn't relate directly to our topic, but I think many here will find it very interesting. And I think it could offer some clues to the Marvel/Fox contract that are worth discussing.

http://orlandounited.com/2016/05/darn-marvel-contract/

Now on the topic of our interests, the first thing to consider is this contract was written in 1994 - which is just about the same time the FF rights were being transferred from Constantin to Fox. That means some of the exact same Marvel lawyers who wrote the contract referenced above were involved in writing the revised contract between Fox and Marvel.

Those of us who have been following this for the past 25 years have heard that another Corman effort isn't possible because a new "quality clause" was included in the revised contract between Fox and Marvel.

Up until the moment I read this article, I had assumed that quality clause was fairly specific. Something like:

1. Fox's FF film must have a minimum production budget of X (X would be based on a sliding scale that would factor inflation and budgets of competitive films.
2. Fox's FF film must have a production schedule that includes a minimum of X months pre-production, Y months principle photography and Z months post-production.
3. Fox's FF film must have a cast with at least two actors who have been nominated for major awards such as Golden Globes or Oscars.

With the assumption of a quality clause similar to the above. I assumed Fox would have made sure they checked all the boxes when they made the Trank film and, therefore, Marvel wouldn't have any legal case.

But the quality clause in the above mentioned contract is much more interesting and open-ended:

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.

Now that I've seen this example of a quality clause (written by the same lawyers at the same time as the Fox contract), things get very interesting.

Did Fox forfeit their rights to the FF the moment they produced a film with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 9%?

I think that's very possible, but truly answering that question becomes a bit complicated.

When I was working on my patent, I asked the lawyer: "How do we know how far our competitors can legally go without violating our patent?" The lawyer replied: "We can't truly know until a judge and/or jury has ruled on it."

And I think it's a similar situation here. The only way Marvel can truly determine if Fox violated the quality clause would be to take it to court and have a judge and/or jury rule on it. I think most of us would agree that Fox would have a very strong legal case, but legal battles are a matter of last resort.

Trials are expensive, they air dirty laundry, they poison working relationships, and the outcomes are never certain.

Both Marvel and Fox would likely want to work it out without going to court. But IF there was a similar quality clause in the Marvel/Fox contract, both Marvel and Fox would know that Marvel would have an extremely strong case if they did go to trial. That would greatly weaken Fox's bargaining position, and likely lead to them snatching up anything Marvel would be wiling to offer.

 

[Dark Raven]

If Fox have forfeited their right by producing a film with a 9% RT score, then if it were ruled in Marvel's favour in court, why would Marvel even need to trade anything with Fox for the FF rights? They should automatically get them back for free.

Of course, even before FFINO had the 9% score, it already didn't look remotely like a quality product. As soon as Fox announced the cast or showed us trashbag Doom, they should've forfeited their rights.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

If Fox have forfeited their right by producing a film with a 9% RT score, then if it were ruled in Marvel's favour in court, why would Marvel even need to trade anything with Fox for the FF rights? They should automatically get them back for free.

o

As I mentioned, the rights wouldn't automatically revert. Marvel would have to take Fox to court and they would want to avoid that. So if such wording is included, Marvel will still have to put some effort to reclaim them. But a clause like that combined with the three films Fox has produced would greatly weaken Fox's bargaining position.

 

[Kanon]

But the quality clause in the above mentioned contract is much more interesting and open-ended:

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.

When I was working on my patent, I asked the lawyer: "How do we know how far our competitors can legally go without violating our patent?" The lawyer replied: "We can't truly know until a judge and/or jury has ruled on it."

And I think it's a similar situation here. The only way Marvel can truly determine if Fox violated the quality clause would be to take it to court and have a judge and/or jury rule on it. I think most of us would agree that Fox would have a very strong legal case, but legal battles are a matter of last resort.

In my legal system (Argentina), and probably most of the world, such non specific stuff open to interpretation are, like your lawyer said, subject mostly to what the judge says, to his opinion. I say mostly because it will be his opinion and he has final say, BUT, that opinion should be formed taking into account what is the normal way to do stuff (a movie in this case), to see if there is causality from what fox did, and the result (crappy movie). If the judge sees that the script was rushed to a deadline and the budget is reduced constantly, he can rule that naturally, the result is a crappy movie

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

In my legal system (Argentina), and probably most of the world, such non specific stuff open to interpretation are, like your lawyer said, subject mostly to what the judge says, to his opinion. I say mostly because it will be his opinion and he has final say, BUT, that opinion should be formed taking into account what is the normal way to do stuff (a movie in this case), to see if there is causality from what fox did, and the result (crappy movie). If the judge sees that the script was rushed to a deadline and the budget is reduced constantly, he can rule that naturally, the result is a crappy movie

If Marvel took this to court, you can bet Marvel lawyers would be subpoenaing anybody who had knowledge of what was going on with Tank, and that could get REALLY ugly.

...which is why it would never go to court. Neither Fox nor Marvel want that ugliness, so they'd work something out before it got to that.

But that's a powerful card Marvel has in their back pocket. If Fox isn't willing to be reasonable, Marvel just says: "Fine. We'll see you in court." And Fox, realizing what a public relations nightmare that would be, will blink and give Marvel what they want.

 

[Orba]

Something that has been posted a few times but never posted here so I figured I would put it here since it shows why we really want the Fantastic Four back with Marvel.

DEADLINE: Deadpool was just such a lightning bolt, an R-rated movie Marvel Comics character that shows there is room for racy superheroes. You are at family-friendly Disney. Any thought to getting into the R-rated superhero game?
FEIGE: No, we’ve not had any specific conversations about that. And that is only part of the takeaway from Deadpool. The thing that Deadpool shows is, when you present something unique to an audience, they will respond to it. When you present something as popular as a superhero character, in a different and unique and crazy way as they did in Deadpool, it demands attention and audiences went to it. They pulled it off. Tim Miller did a tremendous job. The other secret, and why it’s still a secret, I don’t know, but they just took what Deadpool is in the comics. He breaks the fourth wall. He talks into the camera. He doesn’t give a ***** about any of the other heroes. He doesn’t take anything seriously. All of that is what made Deadpool so popular in the comics. Tim and his writers and Ryan Reynolds were able to get that and even magnify that up on the big screen. We’ve always said if there’s any “secret” it’s respect the source material, understand the source material and then, any adaptation you make from the source material should be done only to enhance whatever the original pure spirit of the source material was. Deadpool hit on all cylinders with that.

http://deadline.com/2016/05/kevin-f...-man-doctor-strange-black-panther-1201750467/


That quote shows that Feige understands in a way that other studios don't. Nolan's Batman comes out in studios decide superhero movies need to be dark and serious, Deadpool comes out and they decide that the films need to be R-rated. But Marvel understands it just means you just make the film so that it fits the character, you don't change the character to fit the film.

 

[jaymes_e06]

I agree with what he says however some of the heroes they have are R-rated in spirit so why aren't any of them getting movies? Because they made a specific tone that they have to abide due to Disneys rulership.

 

[Flint Marko]

I agree with what he says however some of the heroes they have are R-rated in spirit so why aren't any of them getting movies? Because they made a specific tone that they have to abide due to Disneys rulership.

And that's what the Netflix shows are for. Both Jessica Jones and Daredevil have arguably been some of the best superhero adaptions we've ever seen.

 

[jaymes_e06]

Sure but having them banished their indefinitely is kind of sad. I want to see Spider-Man with The Punisher and Daredevil more than any of the MCU's current Avengers.

 

[Flint Marko]

Sure but having them banished their indefinitely is kind of sad. I want to see Spider-Man with The Punisher and Daredevil more than any of the MCU's current Avengers.

I'm just thankful we even have such an expansive cinematic universe based on characters I love that is wildly successful. I could pick it apart all day and name several things I would have done differently or things I want them to do in the future, but it doesn't matter when what they are consistently turning out is so consistently good.

 

[Boom]

Any new word on this?

 

[Web-Head]

Any new word on this?

Nope

 

[ADollarADay]

Here's a very interesting article about the Disney/Universal theme-park agreement. It doesn't relate directly to our topic, but I think many here will find it very interesting. And I think it could offer some clues to the Marvel/Fox contract that are worth discussing.

http://orlandounited.com/2016/05/darn-marvel-contract/

Now on the topic of our interests, the first thing to consider is this contract was written in 1994 - which is just about the same time the FF rights were being transferred from Constantin to Fox. That means some of the exact same Marvel lawyers who wrote the contract referenced above were involved in writing the revised contract between Fox and Marvel.

Those of us who have been following this for the past 25 years have heard that another Corman effort isn't possible because a new "quality clause" was included in the revised contract between Fox and Marvel.

Up until the moment I read this article, I had assumed that quality clause was fairly specific. Something like:

1. Fox's FF film must have a minimum production budget of X (X would be based on a sliding scale that would factor inflation and budgets of competitive films.
2. Fox's FF film must have a production schedule that includes a minimum of X months pre-production, Y months principle photography and Z months post-production.
3. Fox's FF film must have a cast with at least two actors who have been nominated for major awards such as Golden Globes or Oscars.

With the assumption of a quality clause similar to the above. I assumed Fox would have made sure they checked all the boxes when they made the Trank film and, therefore, Marvel wouldn't have any legal case.

But the quality clause in the above mentioned contract is much more interesting and open-ended:

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.

Now that I've seen this example of a quality clause (written by the same lawyers at the same time as the Fox contract), things get very interesting.

Did Fox forfeit their rights to the FF the moment they produced a film with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 9%?

I think that's very possible, but truly answering that question becomes a bit complicated.

When I was working on my patent, I asked the lawyer: "How do we know how far our competitors can legally go without violating our patent?" The lawyer replied: "We can't truly know until a judge and/or jury has ruled on it."

And I think it's a similar situation here. The only way Marvel can truly determine if Fox violated the quality clause would be to take it to court and have a judge and/or jury rule on it. I think most of us would agree that Fox would have a very strong legal case, but legal battles are a matter of last resort.

Trials are expensive, they air dirty laundry, they poison working relationships, and the outcomes are never certain.

Both Marvel and Fox would likely want to work it out without going to court. But IF there was a similar quality clause in the Marvel/Fox contract, both Marvel and Fox would know that Marvel would have an extremely strong case if they did go to trial. That would greatly weaken Fox's bargaining position, and likely lead to them snatching up anything Marvel would be wiling to offer.

The publicly available contract between Marvel and Universal for theme park rides shows just how much Marvel was giving up back then and how much they were being bullied. I do wanna say that I believe Disney/Marvel does not have to allow Universal to create MCU characters for rides. The wording on the contract is loose, but they can definitely argue that the contract was done before the MCU existed and is based off the comics, not the Cinematic Universe. I do believe Universal would have used MCU characters and world if they could just go ahead and do it. They would have no reason not to. Other than that, though, the contract is spot on and ironglad.

You have a very good point, though. We know that Marvel did send a letter to Sony after the disappointment that was The Amazing Spiderman 2. Because of that, a deal actually got done. I'm not gonna touch on the deal itself (I think Marvel is playing the long game and it is actually a long term one that will see Marvel get all of the rights back in the future).

Let's do some comparison of loaned movie rights franchises (bolded means the movie came out prior to Disney's acquisition of Marvel):

Fantastic Four movies RT scores, domestic BO take and WW BO Take

• Fantastic Four (2005) = 27%, $155M, $331m
• Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) = 37%, 132M, 289M
• Fan4tastic (2015) = 9%, 56M, 168M

Spiderman RT scores, domestic BO take, and WW BO take

• Spider man (2002) = 89%, 404M, 822M
• Spider man 2 (2004) = 93%, 374M, 784M
• Spider man 3 (2007) = 63%, 337M, 891M
• Amazing Spider man (2012) = 73%, 262M, 758M
• Amazing Spider man 2 (2014) = 53%, 202M, 709M

XMen RT scores, domestic BO take, and WW BO take

• XMen (2000) = 81%, 157M, 296M
• X2 XMen United (2003) = 86%, 215M, 408M
• XMen The Last Stand (2006) = 58%, 234M, 459M
• XMen Origins Wolverine (2009) = 38%, 180M, 373M
• XMen First Class (2011) = 87%, 146M, 354M
• Wolverine (2013) = 70%, 133M, 415M
• XMen DOFP (2014) = 91%, 234M, 748M
• Deadpool (2016) = 83%, 361M, 760M

I believe the criteria Marvel can and should use is their own movies. They can easily go to a judge/jury and present facts like "Hey, look at our movies, this is what we average, this is what we take in. They are not doing a good job with our property and our property is being damaged. As per the contract the quality is not up to par with what we expect etc etc". And it will also depend on the franchise/character, and the starpower of that franchise. I think Marvel probably has internal targets on what should constitute as quality for XMen, FF, and SM. Fantastic Four should do at least as well as TW at Rotten Tomatoes and Ant Man at the box office, for example.

So let's look at MCU RT scores, domestic BO take, and WW BO take

• IronMan (2008) = 94%, 318M, 585M
• The Incredible Hulk (2008) = 67%, 135M, 263M
• Iron man 2 (2010) = 72%, 312M, 624M
• Thor (2011) = 77%, 181M, 449M
• Captain American: TFA (2011) = 80%, 177M, 371M
• Avengers (2012) = 92%, 623M, 1.52B
• Ironman 3 (2013) = 79%, 409M, 1.22B
• Thor: TDW (2013) = 66%, 206M, 645M
• Captain America: TWS (2014) = 89%, 260M, 714M
• Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) = 91%, 333M, 773M
• Avengers Age of Ultron (2015) = 75%, 459M, 1.4B
• Ant Man (2015) = 80%, 180M, 519M
• Captain America Civil War (2016) = 91%, 182M, 678M

So Marvel looks at those numbers, compares it to theirs and makes a call. An educated guess says they do have an out clause based on what I like to call subjective quality. They did not care much about exercising that right prior to Disney's acquisition and the formation of their own Marvel Studios, but they certainly do now.

I think if Fox releases another XMen under 60% on RT and 400-500M WW BO, they will get a call from Marvel. Maybe if it does under 200M domestic, it will get a call as well.

It is undeniable that Fox has damaged the Fantastic Four brand, more so with the latest crap they released. If Marvel sent out a notice to Sony for Spiderman after Amazing 2 (which was 10x better than Fan4stic), then you can bet your ass they sent one out to Fox. I think you're right that they want to avoid going to court as much as possible, and even Fox possibly knows that Marvel has a good case here and wants to avoid it. They would want to transfer the rights without having to go to court, and maybe that is what the XMen tv deal and some of the deadpool merch coming back (some of it based on the movie where fox gets a percentage) was all about.

I think Marvel conceded a lot to get spidey back, especially if some of the rumors are true (and if my theory of the long term game is wrong, then they conceded more than I would expect a Disney subsidiary to ever concede). However, that is because it is spiderman, the most profitable hero on the planet in terms of merchandise. Marvel wouldn't concede nearly as much for FF and I don't think they would go for a shared deal. A couple of xmen tv deals that runs for x amount of seasons and some merchandise on deadpool where fox gets a y percentage of the revenue sounds like a fair deal to me.

 

[ADollarADay]

I agree with what he says however some of the heroes they have are R-rated in spirit so why aren't any of them getting movies? Because they made a specific tone that they have to abide due to Disneys rulership.

Well if they make a punisher, ghost rider, or blade movie, I expect it to be R rated and with all the warnings that deadpool received at the box office (i.e. this is not your typical marvel family movie etc etc).

On future cross overs though, say if punisher appeared in spiderman homecoming or blade appeared in dr. strange 2, then you should expect the characters to behave like PG-13 characters.

 

[Orba]

On future cross overs though, say if punisher appeared in spiderman homecoming or blade appeared in dr. strange 2, then you should expect the characters to behave like PG-13 characters.

Yeah, in the comics the Punisher does things in his own comic which you would never see him doing in a Spider-Man comic.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

The publicly available contract between Marvel and Universal for theme park rides shows just how much Marvel was giving up back then and how much they were being bullied. I do wanna say that I believe Disney/Marvel does not have to allow Universal to create MCU characters for rides. The wording on the contract is loose, but they can definitely argue that the contract was done before the MCU existed and is based off the comics, not the Cinematic Universe. I do believe Universal would have used MCU characters and world if they could just go ahead and do it. They would have no reason not to. Other than that, though, the contract is spot on and ironglad.

You have a very good point, though. We know that Marvel did send a letter to Sony after the disappointment that was The Amazing Spiderman 2. Because of that, a deal actually got done. I'm not gonna touch on the deal itself (I think Marvel is playing the long game and it is actually a long term one that will see Marvel get all of the rights back in the future).

Let's do some comparison of loaned movie rights franchises (bolded means the movie came out prior to Disney's acquisition of Marvel):

Fantastic Four movies RT scores, domestic BO take and WW BO Take

• Fantastic Four (2005) = 27%, $155M, $331m
• Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) = 37%, 132M, 289M
• Fan4tastic (2015) = 9%, 56M, 168M

Spiderman RT scores, domestic BO take, and WW BO take

• Spider man (2002) = 89%, 404M, 822M
• Spider man 2 (2004) = 93%, 374M, 784M
• Spider man 3 (2007) = 63%, 337M, 891M
• Amazing Spider man (2012) = 73%, 262M, 758M
• Amazing Spider man 2 (2014) = 53%, 202M, 709M

XMen RT scores, domestic BO take, and WW BO take

• XMen (2000) = 81%, 157M, 296M
• X2 XMen United (2003) = 86%, 215M, 408M
• XMen The Last Stand (2006) = 58%, 234M, 459M
• XMen Origins Wolverine (2009) = 38%, 180M, 373M
• XMen First Class (2011) = 87%, 146M, 354M
• Wolverine (2013) = 70%, 133M, 415M
• XMen DOFP (2014) = 91%, 234M, 748M
• Deadpool (2016) = 83%, 361M, 760M

I believe the criteria Marvel can and should use is their own movies. They can easily go to a judge/jury and present facts like "Hey, look at our movies, this is what we average, this is what we take in. They are not doing a good job with our property and our property is being damaged. As per the contract the quality is not up to par with what we expect etc etc". And it will also depend on the franchise/character, and the starpower of that franchise. I think Marvel probably has internal targets on what should constitute as quality for XMen, FF, and SM. Fantastic Four should do at least as well as TW at Rotten Tomatoes and Ant Man at the box office, for example.

So let's look at MCU RT scores, domestic BO take, and WW BO take

• IronMan (2008) = 94%, 318M, 585M
• The Incredible Hulk (2008) = 67%, 135M, 263M
• Iron man 2 (2010) = 72%, 312M, 624M
• Thor (2011) = 77%, 181M, 449M
• Captain American: TFA (2011) = 80%, 177M, 371M
• Avengers (2012) = 92%, 623M, 1.52B
• Ironman 3 (2013) = 79%, 409M, 1.22B
• Thor: TDW (2013) = 66%, 206M, 645M
• Captain America: TWS (2014) = 89%, 260M, 714M
• Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) = 91%, 333M, 773M
• Avengers Age of Ultron (2015) = 75%, 459M, 1.4B
• Ant Man (2015) = 80%, 180M, 519M
• Captain America Civil War (2016) = 91%, 182M, 678M

So Marvel looks at those numbers, compares it to theirs and makes a call. An educated guess says they do have an out clause based on what I like to call subjective quality. They did not care much about exercising that right prior to Disney's acquisition and the formation of their own Marvel Studios, but they certainly do now.

I think if Fox releases another XMen under 60% on RT and 400-500M WW BO, they will get a call from Marvel. Maybe if it does under 200M domestic, it will get a call as well.

It is undeniable that Fox has damaged the Fantastic Four brand, more so with the latest crap they released. If Marvel sent out a notice to Sony for Spiderman after Amazing 2 (which was 10x better than Fan4stic), then you can bet your ass they sent one out to Fox. I think you're right that they want to avoid going to court as much as possible, and even Fox possibly knows that Marvel has a good case here and wants to avoid it. They would want to transfer the rights without having to go to court, and maybe that is what the XMen tv deal and some of the deadpool merch coming back (some of it based on the movie where fox gets a percentage) was all about.

I think Marvel conceded a lot to get spidey back, especially if some of the rumors are true (and if my theory of the long term game is wrong, then they conceded more than I would expect a Disney subsidiary to ever concede). However, that is because it is spiderman, the most profitable hero on the planet in terms of merchandise. Marvel wouldn't concede nearly as much for FF and I don't think they would go for a shared deal. A couple of xmen tv deals that runs for x amount of seasons and some merchandise on deadpool where fox gets a y percentage of the revenue sounds like a fair deal to me.

Those are all good points. IF the Spider-man and FF contracts have similarly worded quality clauses as the one for the theme-parks it's a double-edged sword. Marvel could have taken Sony to court after ASM2 and they certainly could take Fox to court now. But the same vagueness of wording that would allow them to sue even Sony is also too vague for them to be certain of victory.

I don't think we'll ever see Fox and Marvel in court over FF. I think they'll find a far more amicable way to work things out that will benefit both parties.

But I also think that since the contract likely includes wording at least somewhat similar to what was published, we don't need to fear that Fox will slap together another pathetic film to keep the rights. If it got close to that, I think Marvel would take Fox to court.

 

[ADollarADay]

Those are all good points. IF the Spider-man and FF contracts have similarly worded quality clauses as the one for the theme-parks it's a double-edged sword. Marvel could have taken Sony to court after ASM2 and they certainly could take Fox to court now. But the same vagueness of wording that would allow them to sue even Sony is also too vague for them to be certain of victory.

I don't think we'll ever see Fox and Marvel in court over FF. I think they'll find a far more amicable way to work things out that will benefit both parties.

But I also think that since the contract likely includes wording at least somewhat similar to what was published, we don't need to fear that Fox will slap together another pathetic film to keep the rights. If it got close to that, I think Marvel would take Fox to court.

True, there's no guarantee. Nothing is ever guaranteed in court, to be honest. However, we can say that Marvel would have a very strong case in suing Fox for damaging their brand.

I really hope things have been worked out and the rights are transferred. Marvel turned a C lister (Ironman) into an A lister up there with batman, superman, and spiderman. Cap is close behind now after Civil War. They turned a talking racoon and a tree into big heroes and all their heroes are now much more popular than before. Their videogame presence notwithstanding, Marvel is hitting it out of the park in all cylinders and I wondered how quickly and how popular they would get the FF considering they already gave us the best spidey ever IMO, Daredevil, Elektra, Punisher are now an intriguing characters again and people are actually asking for them in the big screen, after other studios damaged them.

I will keep my fingers crossed that your theory about comic con is correct.

 

[Web-Head]

Well if they make a punisher, ghost rider, or blade movie, I expect it to be R rated and with all the warnings that deadpool received at the box office (i.e. this is not your typical marvel family movie etc etc).

On future cross overs though, say if punisher appeared in spiderman homecoming or blade appeared in dr. strange 2, then you should expect the characters to behave like PG-13 characters.

I don't know much about Ghost Rider, but you don't think they could make it PG-13? The Nicholas Cage ones were and I wouldn't mind seeing Ghost Rider again done right.

 

[jaymes_e06]

I'm just thankful we even have such an expansive cinematic universe based on characters I love that is wildly successful. I could pick it apart all day and name several things I would have done differently or things I want them to do in the future, but it doesn't matter when what they are consistently turning out is so consistently good.

Very true we are very lucky to have that still I hope they get more courage to really go to do a hard R rated film. That's my only really valid complaint with Marvel Disney is their hesitation towards more adult and mature content in film. I'd see X-Men and Dardevil fitting in easier if Fox wanted to co produce.

 

[jaymes_e06]

Well if they make a punisher, ghost rider, or blade movie, I expect it to be R rated and with all the warnings that deadpool received at the box office (i.e. this is not your typical marvel family movie etc etc).

On future cross overs though, say if punisher appeared in spiderman homecoming or blade appeared in dr. strange 2, then you should expect the characters to behave like PG-13 characters.

I know yeah, it is not so much the PG-13 rating as much as the fact that I doubt they would take them out of their Netflix corner to do a film at all let alone a team up one.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Every comic book I've ever read had the Comics Code Authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority stamp - meaning they were basically G - rated. I never found myself thinking "Gee, these need more obscenities and sex." They were comic books.

 

[Random490]

I agree with what he says however some of the heroes they have are R-rated in spirit so why aren't any of them getting movies? Because they made a specific tone that they have to abide due to Disneys rulership.

I don't think Disney would have a problem if Fiege decided to make an R rated film. Marvel acts pretty independently from Disney and they've been good at letting Marvel do what they want. Disney simply own the company and so far just lets the CEO run how he wants (for better or worse) It's only recently that Fiege doesn't have to report to Marvel's CEO.

Even still Disney has no concerns of images from what Marvel does. There's no Disney logo attached to any of their movies. It's never promoted as part of Disney's brand, Marvel has their own identity. There are only two reasons why they don't have an R rated film. One, they don't have any plans for a film with a character the needs the film to be hard. And two, R rated films are no where near as profitable as PG-13 movies. In the past few decades R-rated blockbusters have had a significant drop in profitability. One main reason why is because you cut out kids and teens from buying tickets. Plus now you can get away with fantasy violence to pass the mpaa ratings. Disney knows better than to confuse brands, whether or not the MCU makes a R film will depend more on profits than some standard to which they've never applied to Marvel before.

 

[jaymes_e06]

Every comic book I've ever read had the Comics Code Authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority stamp - meaning they were basically G - rated. I never found myself thinking "Gee, these need more obscenities and sex." They were comic books.

I don't mean just vulgarity I mean less child friendly and I've read comics that weren't G rated so I feel sorry for the people who limited their experience in such a way.