The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - Part 5

[GENERAL RAAM582]

"Reed and Ben: The College Years"

They could literally do that, right? They could make some POS "found-footage" movie of the gang doing science experiments for 90 minutes and they'd be able to keep the rights?

 

[Web-Head]

They could literally do that, right? They could make some POS "found-footage" movie of the gang doing science experiments for 90 minutes and they'd be able to keep the rights?

I think there's still some sort of approval needed on Marvel's end or something like it has to meet certain guidelines, so I'm not 100% sure. I could be wrong though

 

[Evan Drew]

I just think now is not the time to reveal anything even if they have come home. Phase Four reveal is the time. Phase Four centered around THE Four. After Infinity, the Avengers will need SOME rest.

The manner in which Phase Four progresses could be epic, especially if the first one announced is simply Marvel Studios "Doom". He has a vast history that runs the course from hero to tragic villain that alone can carry an entire film. All the others are in response to this first movie. And no one can argue that Doom is not the one hurt most by the previous attempts, so an entire movie dedicated to fixing his place in the public's eye seems most logical.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I just think now is not the time to reveal anything even if they have come home. Phase Four reveal is the time. Phase Four centered around THE Four. After Infinity, the Avengers will need SOME rest.

The manner in which Phase Four progresses could be epic, especially if the first one announced is simply Marvel Studios "Doom". He has a vast history that runs the course from hero to tragic villain that alone can carry an entire film. All the others are in response to this first movie. And no one can argue that Doom is not the one hurt most by the previous attempts, so an entire movie dedicated to fixing his place in the public's eye seems most logical.

It does seem interesting that they didn't offer any clarity on the upcoming films.

Unless I missed some announcements, we still have four unknown films. One in 2019 (formerly Inhumans) and three in 2020.

Correct?

Has there been any speculation regarding what those films would be? Are they not revealing them because they don't want to give away their plan. . . or are they keeping things flexible to see how things develop?

 

[Web-Head]

It does seem interesting that they didn't offer any clarity on the upcoming films.

Unless I missed some announcements, we still have four unknown films. One in 2019 (formerly Inhumans) and three in 2020.

Correct?

Has there been any speculation regarding what those films would be? Are they not revealing them because they don't want to give away their plan. . . or are they keeping things flexible to see how things develop?

In an interview with Feige, he said they just now have a good idea as to what the three films in 2020 will be and I'm not sure they're going to have a movie replace Inhumans on the schedule

 

[TheVileOne]

No Fantastic Four announced this year. As everyone should've known and expected.

 

[TheVileOne]

It does seem interesting that they didn't offer any clarity on the upcoming films.

I'm not sure why that's interesting or why it means anything.

Unless I missed some announcements, we still have four unknown films. One in 2019 (formerly Inhumans) and three in 2020.

Correct?

Has there been any speculation regarding what those films would be? Are they not revealing them because they don't want to give away their plan. . . or are they keeping things flexible to see how things develop?

One of those would likely be a third Guardians of the Galaxy, sequels to Black Panther or Captain Marvel, Spider-Man, etc.

 

[WeaponXCII]

I think there's still some sort of approval needed on Marvel's end or something like it has to meet certain guidelines, so I'm not 100% sure. I could be wrong though

Unfortunately, I don't think there's any sort of quality clause in place. I could definitely be wrong though- this is just what I've heard. All Fox needs to do is release a film by 2023. It could be the most blatant ashcan copy and they'd still be able to play keep-away for another seven years. Remember the '94 Fantastic Four?

Has there been any speculation regarding what those films would be? Are they not revealing them because they don't want to give away their plan. . . or are they keeping things flexible to see how things develop?

If I'm understanding your question, Fiege's stated that they're planning their movies to accommodate multiple eventualities. See the link below.

http://www.slashfilm.com/marvel-contingency-plans/

So, it looks like SDCC has come to a close without any news of the rights reverting. Guess we'll have to keep hope alive for another year....

 

[jaymes_e06]

I think there's still some sort of approval needed on Marvel's end or something like it has to meet certain guidelines, so I'm not 100% sure. I could be wrong though

I don't think so. From what I heard Marvelwas completely against the 90s movie but they still did that one.

 

[Docker2.0]

The 90's movie wasn't Fox though.

 

[ADollarADay]

I like Universal more than Disney World, so I hope that one doesn't happen.

That's nice, most single adults prefer Universal. However, Universal really can't do much outside of a few upgrades (like the Hulk is getting) and refurbishments (i.e. Spiderman). Disney is also preparing DHS to be more "hip" with better rides. Iger has mentioned wanting everything under one roof.

Universal can't do an "Avengers" building and a New York area with them. They can't do Hell's Kitchen. They can't do a GoTG ride. They can't demolish the horrible Dr Doom fall and the Cyclops stupid ride and make a real good FF and XMen ride. They can't even create a new Ironman or Captain America ride.

You can tell the area is old and being bandaided together. They can't give it the Harry Potter or even Transformers treatment. Disney and Universal know this. Disney is giving Star Wars the best of the best treatment and it'll be a hell of a ride (or two or three).

That's fine if you prefer Universal, but if no deal is ever reached there, don't ever expect a top of the line Marvel Universe anywhere in Orlando. California is limited as well dues to space. I guess Disney could always open another park in Texas though.

They could literally do that, right? They could make some POS "found-footage" movie of the gang doing science experiments for 90 minutes and they'd be able to keep the rights?

Based on what we know, yes. "Fantastic Four: The College years" where it just tells the story of Ben and Reed in college would suffice. It wouldn't need much and can just end with them meeting the twins at the end of the movie after a lot of parties. Heck, have Seth Rogen star as Ben lol

 

[Zarex]

Based on what we know, yes. "Fantastic Four: The College years" where it just tells the story of Ben and Reed in college would suffice. It wouldn't need much and can just end with them meeting the twins at the end of the movie after a lot of parties. Heck, have Seth Rogen star as Ben lol

Based on what we know, no. Marvel Comics: The Untold Story revealed that Avi Arad had guidelines in place to prevent a rights grab that fell outside certain guidelines of a Fantastic Four film in terms of plot and budget. It didn't prevent FFINO, but it would prevent a non FF prequel.

Major studios like FOX and Sony are actually trying to make money on their Marvel licensing agreements. The goal isn't to extend them just to extend them. Putting films that no one has any desire to see into production - including a Spidey stripped of his MCU membership and a non superhero FF prequel - are highly unlikely to see the light of day.

 

[Chris B]

It does seem interesting that they didn't offer any clarity on the upcoming films.

Unless I missed some announcements, we still have four unknown films. One in 2019 (formerly Inhumans) and three in 2020.

Correct?

Has there been any speculation regarding what those films would be? Are they not revealing them because they don't want to give away their plan. . . or are they keeping things flexible to see how things develop?

If we do still get a third film in 2019, I think it'll be either Dr. Strange 2 or Spider-Man 2: The MCU Edition. 2020 will probably be GOTG3, a second sequel film, and a new property.

 

[ADollarADay]

Based on what we know, no. Marvel Comics: The Untold Story revealed that Avi Arad had guidelines in place to prevent a rights grab that fell outside certain guidelines of a Fantastic Four film in terms of plot and budget. It didn't prevent FFINO, but it would prevent a non FF prequel.

Major studios like FOX and Sony are actually trying to make money on their Marvel licensing agreements. The goal isn't to extend them just to extend them. Putting films that no one has any desire to see into production - including a Spidey stripped of his MCU membership and a non superhero FF prequel - are highly unlikely to see the light of day.

You're being obtuse when a rights grab movie happened just last year. A spidey stripped from MCU is more realistic than you think if the public information is all there is to it, but I digress. You'll believe what you want to believe. A FF: Origins story sounds very much like it's within the guidelines of the contract.

Marvel Comics: The Untold Story also does not reveal what the guidelines are IIRC.

 

[Val_Zod]

You're being obtuse when a rights grab movie happened just last year. A spidey stripped from MCU is more realistic than you think if the public information is all there is to it, but I digress. You'll believe what you want to believe. A FF: Origins story sounds very much like it's within the guidelines of the contract.

Marvel Comics: The Untold Story also does not reveal what the guidelines are IIRC.

Sony's stock would plummet to the ground if the even thought of doing that. Spidey is now well established in the MCU. If they so much as thought to do that, they are boned.

Meanwhile, that rights grab Fox released last year, yeah, pretty sure Fox didn't think it would bomb.

 

[Orba]

I'm curious, what is the worst performing film to have received a sequel? Just sticking to box office performance rather than critical since there is plenty of tripe like Bayformers that do great despite being complete rubbish.

 

[Zarex]

You're being obtuse when a rights grab movie happened just last year. A spidey stripped from MCU is more realistic than you think if the public information is all there is to it, but I digress. You'll believe what you want to believe. A FF: Origins story sounds very much like it's within the guidelines of the contract.
X
Marvel Comics: The Untold Story also does not reveal what the guidelines are IIRC.

You think that FOX is going to put another cheap rights grab into production after the disaster that was FFINO, and I'm being obtuse? The studio at least had some hope FFINO would bring in a few bucks. A follow-up is DOA.

Why would the Murdoch's approve a film that would only be seen by the families of the cast and crew? Do you think they hate money? And what would be the point of extending a licensing agreement that hasn't earned the company a dime in well over a decade?

I brought up the "Reed and Ben:The College Years" as a goof, knowing that no one who actually understood how money worked would take it seriously. The FF at FOX are DUN.

 

[Orba]

So far the only box office flop I can think of that got a sequel is Chronicles of Riddick which made $116M on a $105M production budget (plus advertising). But its sequel took 9 years to appear (which Fox don't have), and CoR was itself a sequel, to the far superior Pitch Black. There is an XXX sequel supposed to be coming but it probably doesn't count as it is supposed to be a sequel to the highly successful original rather than the Vinless sequel.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I'm not sure why that's interesting or why it means anything.

I find it interesting because in 2014, we knew the schedule through 2019.

Now it's 2016 and we don't even know the complete 2019 line-up. Marvel must have some idea. They're not going to just slap something together at the last minute.

It may just be that they want to see box-office numbers before they decide what sequels to do, but I hope they're planning something more interesting than that. I'm, frankly, a little bored with the current line-up and hope they will be injecting something new into the mix.

So not knowing makes me curious and curiosity makes me interested. That's all.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

So far the only box office flop I can think of that got a sequel is Chronicles of Riddick which made $116M on a $105M production budget (plus advertising). But its sequel took 9 years to appear (which Fox don't have), and CoR was itself a sequel, to the far superior Pitch Black. There is an XXX sequel supposed to be coming but it probably doesn't count as it is supposed to be a sequel to the highly successful original rather than the Vinless sequel.

One that popped into my mind was "Son of Kong" in the eighties after the 1976 King Kong.

But I did a little research and saw that, while the 1976 film was a bit of a disappointment based on expectations, it made $52 million on a $24 million budget, so it wasn't really a flop.

And Son of Kong didn't come out until 1986 and was probably more of a cheap attempt to make a little money off the name than a true sequel. I see that it made $4.7 million - it's not even available on video (I've looked and actually bought a DVD that turned out to only be playable on my computer). I can't find any budget information, but I remember it looked VERY cheap (as one example, I remember Kong was hunting alligators and they clearly just used toy rubber alligators that weren't even modified to look more realistic on screen).

I can't really think of any big-budget flops that got true sequels. One might be able to argue that some of the Jaws sequels flopped but still got follow-ups, but I suspect even with those, if you looked at the numbers, they all did far better in terms of budget/box office ratio than Fant4astic.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

You're being obtuse when a rights grab movie happened just last year. A spidey stripped from MCU is more realistic than you think if the public information is all there is to it, but I digress. You'll believe what you want to believe. A FF: Origins story sounds very much like it's within the guidelines of the contract.

Marvel Comics: The Untold Story also does not reveal what the guidelines are IIRC.

Here is some information that might give us a hint regarding the quality clause:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=33604673&postcount=378

Based on that, I suspect the wording of the quality clause was very general and open to interpretation by a court.

I think both Fox and Marvel could argue their respective sides regarding if the last film met the requirements of such a general quality clause. Fox could argue that they hired a director whose previous film was generally praised, brought in a talented, respected cast and gave it a budget of over $100 million.

Marvel could point to the script-writers, Fox's refusal to scrap the project when things were clearly going off the rails, and the end result.

So Fox may not have clearly violated the contract yet, but if they decided to do a truly cheap film, I think Marvel Lawyers would step in and try to stop it.

But as has also been pointed out, the idea of making another cheap film just doesn't make sense. The rights are as close to worthless (in Fox's hands) as they could possibly be at this moment and another crappy film would make them completely worthless. So there doesn't seem to be any reason for Fox to piss off fans and shareholders by making another bad film just to hold on to rights that would eventually end up truly and totally worthless.

As fans, I think a lot of us look at the last film as an attempt to keep the rights. While that may be partly true, I think Fox also thought they would be making money on it. If Fox had a crystal ball that would have shown them how badly the film was going to bomb, I'm confident they wouldn't have done it.

And despite our hatred for Fox and their bad decisions, they can't be so thick now that they believe a new film would be accepted with open arms by fans.

I think the bottom line is: Fox will not make another FF film unless it is a serious effort with serious box office potential, and since they realize the chances of them actually making their money back on a serious film are extremely slim, they won't make another FF film unless Marvel is involved.

If they are foolish enough to try again, I'll be here and in every "Comments Section" I can find doing everything I can to foment anger and hatred of Fox.

But I don't think I'll have to work too hard, and I think I'll have plenty of company.

 

[Silvermoon]

I find it interesting because in 2014, we knew the schedule through 2019.

Now it's 2016 and we don't even know the complete 2019 line-up. Marvel must have some idea. They're not going to just slap something together at the last minute.

It may just be that they want to see box-office numbers before they decide what sequels to do, but I hope they're planning something more interesting than that. I'm, frankly, a little bored with the current line-up and hope they will be injecting something new into the mix.

So not knowing makes me curious and curiosity makes me interested. That's all.

In (late) 2014 when the lineup through 2019 was announced we were approaching the end of a Phase (with just Age of Ultron and Ant-Man left in Phase 2). In 2016 - we've just barely started Phase 3.

I think I said it before, but I hope they do the same thing they did with the Phase 3 announcement event: Wait until we're nearing the end of Phase 3 (let the films within Phase 3 get the attention they deserve) and then - with maybe 1 or 2 (maybe 3) movies left to be released in Phase 3 *then* give us the Phase 4 film slate (so don't announce more films until 2019 - maybe late 2018 at the earliest)

Just my personal opinion, though.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

In (late) 2014 when the lineup through 2019 was announced we were approaching the end of a Phase (with just Age of Ultron and Ant-Man left in Phase 2). In 2016 - we've just barely started Phase 3.

I think I said it before, but I hope they do the same thing they did with the Phase 3 announcement event: Wait until we're nearing the end of Phase 3 (let the films within Phase 3 get the attention they deserve) and then - with maybe 1 or 2 (maybe 3) movies left to be released in Phase 3 *then* give us the Phase 4 film slate (so don't announce more films until 2019 - maybe late 2018 at the earliest)

Just my personal opinion, though.

Makes sense, but I was hoping they would at least give us a little hint and maybe one or two new ones on Saturday.

The one I was most looking forward to was Inhumans. Now that we're not getting that, I hope something interesting is taking it's place.

I'm not a Dr. Strange fan, I'm not a GOTG fan, I'm not a Captain Marvel fan. I'm hoping we're not just going to be getting sequels on top of sequels of those films.

 

[Endeavor]

Oh well. The waiting continues.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Oh well. The waiting continues.

I don't think we have a date yet for the 2017 D23, so we can't start counting down to that yet.