The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - Part 6

[Darepool]

Yeah, it's a simple concept - more $$$

 

[Flint Marko]

Just remember, a few short years ago, Marvel offered Fox an extension on Daredevil in exchange for BORROWING Silver Surfer and Galactus. Fox said now. We saw how that turned out.

That annoys me to this day. We all know Fox was never going to use Silver Surfer or Galactus again, that was simply them being petty and shooting themselves in the foot. They didn't want to play ball, so they lost an important IP, and Marvel got the rights back to one of their best characters in what will go down as one of the best CBM adaptions ever in Netflix's Daredevil.

Have fun sitting on those Galactus and Silver Surfer rights, Fox, lotta good that'll do ya

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

That annoys me to this day. We all know Fox was never going to use Silver Surfer or Galactus again, that was simply them being petty and shooting themselves in the foot. They didn't want to play ball, so they lost an important IP, and Marvel got the rights back to one of their best characters in what will go down as one of the best CBM adaptions ever in Netflix's Daredevil.

Have fun sitting on those Galactus and Silver Surfer rights, Fox, lotta good that'll do ya

I feel relief at that trade not happening. The best deal Marvel never made.

 

[ehh]

Agreed. As big as the Spider-Man films are, it is small potatoes compared to the value of his merchandise rights and Spider-Man both being in the MCU and being in films that don't suck boost those sales even further.

I remember some people asking me about why Marvel would want to make a Spider-Man movie that only Sony profits from. But Marvel has all of the merchandising rights, and the box office revenue is just peanut money in comparison. Let Sony get the money from the solo films while Marvel gets all of the merchandising profits. And then of course Marvel can use Spider-Man in their own movies which is certainly a big benefit.

Curious, is Feige and his team just getting paid by Sony as opposed to Marvel? Is that how it works? I remember long ago people were claiming that Feige was making this movie "for free." But I don't believe that.

 

[ehh]

You are missing the point that the Negasonic/Ego trade illustrates: Fox wanted to use her in Deadpool, but they wanted to change her powers completely. That's a significant change and they had to trade Ego to get Marvels agreement.

Yes, they have got away with numerous poor interpretations of characters in the past, but doing a character well isn't the same as doing a character accurately enough that it counts as using the character as stipulated by the contracts.

I think they made a pigs ear out of Apocalypse for example, but he was close enough to the character from the books that I can't see Fox needing to get any agreement as they didn't change him in a significant manner: ie: He looked like the character and had the same kind of power set.

Bottom line: They can do a character badly, but as long as they are not changing them significantly Marvel don't have a say in the matter.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you weren't being snarky in this post.

I understand what you're saying, but you have Fox turning Galactus into a CLOUD. A giant cloud. Marvel approved that? This is what I'm saying I don't understand, and that is how much freedom does Fox or Sony have with changing the characters?

I mean if Sony wanted to make a Spider-Man film where Doctor Octopus was a walking/talking Octopus, could they do it? Could they take Garfield's comments and make Spider-Man bisexual, or turn MJ into a man? I just wonder what the limits are.

 

[Zarex]

I remember some people asking me about why Marvel would want to make a Spider-Man movie that only Sony profits from. But Marvel has all of the merchandising rights, and the box office revenue is just peanut money in comparison. Let Sony get the money from the solo films while Marvel gets all of the merchandising profits.

Curious, is Feige and his team just gestting paid by Sony as opposed to Marvel? Is that how it works? I remember long ago people were claiming that Feige was making this movie "for free." But I don't believe that.

Feige is a member of the Producers Guild Of America. He couldn't work for free even if he wanted to. Sony is covering Marvel Studios' production costs.

 

[ehh]

Feige is a member of the Producers Guild Of America. He couldn't work for free even if he wanted to. Sony is covering Marvel Studios' production costs.

I mean it's basically a Marvel Studios film that is being funded by Sony instead of Disney? Is that the best way to describe Spider-Man Homecoming?

 

[Zarex]

I mean it's basically a Marvel Studios film that is being funded by Marvel instead of Disney? Is that the best way to describe Spider-Man Homecoming?

Yes, but it is funded by Sony

 

[ehh]

Yes, but it is funded by Sony

Fixed. I meant to say "Sony" instead of "Marvel."

At the end of the day, it's all about letting Kevin Feige/MS and the filmmakers do their thing. Sony can fund it all they want.

 

[wobbly]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you weren't being snarky in this post.

I understand what you're saying, but you have Fox turning Galactus into a CLOUD. A giant cloud. Marvel approved that? This is what I'm saying I don't understand, and that is how much freedom does Fox or Sony have with changing the characters?

I mean if Sony wanted to make a Spider-Man film where Doctor Octopus was a walking/talking Octopus, could they do it? Could they take Garfield's comments and make Spider-Man bisexual, or turn MJ into a man? I just wonder what the limits are.

I wasnt being snarky. The trade shows Fox cannot make big changes without approval. This is now a matter of fact, but you seem to be ignoring it.

And Marvel was a different beast when Galactus was abused.

 

[Flint Marko]

I feel relief at that trade not happening. The best deal Marvel never made.

I'm of two minds on it. At the end of the day I much prefer this awesome version of Daredevil (because we all know there's no way Fox would have even come close), but a small part of me can't help but foam at the mouth for an MCU Silver Surfer.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I wasnt being snarky. The trade shows Fox cannot make big changes without approval. This is now a matter of fact, but you seem to be ignoring it.

And Marvel was a different beast when Galactus was abused.

Lawd.

 

[ehh]

I wasnt being snarky. The trade shows Fox cannot make big changes without approval. This is now a matter of fact, but you seem to be ignoring it.

And Marvel was a different beast when Galactus was abused.

I'm asking to what extent can they make changes without approval. I see what you're saying about the trade deal, and I'm not ignoring anything.

Sony killed off Norman Osborn and made Harry the first Goblin, adding in a whole new storyline about there being a genetic illness, changing the death of Gwen Stacy, and so on. Did Marvel approve that, or did Sony just do it on their own?

I'm just wondering where the line is drawn, and if it works the same way for both Fox and Sony. I don't think any other studios own Marvel characters at the moment since Punisher and Blade are back at Marvel.

 

[Flint Marko]

I believe (and might be incorrect) that these arbitrary changes we are discussing are covered when Marvel reads the script. From what I recall (and again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong), both Sony and Fox have to send the final script to Marvel for their approval and can't proceed without it, so I'm guessing that those smaller changes are discussed and approved of at this stage.

 

[ehh]

I believe (and might be incorrect) that these arbitrary changes we are discussing are covered when Marvel reads the script. From what I recall (and again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong), both Sony and Fox have to send the final script to Marvel for their approval and can't proceed without it, so I'm guessing that those smaller changes are discussed and approved of at this stage.

Probably. I know that Sony was given feedback from Marvel based on the email hacks, but of course Sony must have rejected it.

 

[Flint Marko]

Probably. I know that Sony was given feedback from Marvel based on the email hacks, but of course Sony must have rejected it.

That's what I was basing that on actually. I believe it was Alan Horn who took a hammer to the ASM 2 script, made for a great read.

 

[ehh]

That's what I was basing that on actually. I believe it was Alan Horn who took a hammer to the ASM 2 script, made for a great read.

And that messy film ended up with Spider-Man joining the MCU. So...

 

[Spiderine]

If Homecoming turns out to be a massive hit rejuvenating the franchise I wonder if Sony could still make their own spinoffs based on the new series. Similar to what they originally planned. With or without Marvel's cooperation. Sony is not beyond making bonehead decisions if they see dollar sign potential on their own accord.

 

[Flint Marko]

And that messy film ended up with Spider-Man joining the MCU. So...

And that's why I kinda love it t:
I never want to watch it again, but I'm so happy that Sony **** the bed.

 

[ehh]

If Homecoming turns out to be a massive hit rejuvenating the franchise I wonder if Sony could still make their own spinoffs based on the new series. Similar to what they originally planned. With or without Marvel's cooperation. Sony is not beyond making bonehead decisions if they see dollar sign potential on their own accord.

Marvel tends to stick to 3 films per character, so I imagine Sony will want to venture off and do their own movies, too. Otherwise how will they profit from Spider-Man?

The Marvel Netflix shows exist in the MCU but take place within their own bubble and have no involvement from Feige. So I think Sony could potentially make a series of spin-off films that fit within the MCU continuity, assuming they get some serious approval from Marvel/Feige. It might be too complicated, but it could happen.

 

[Spiderine]

I'm asking to what extent can they make changes without approval. I see what you're saying about the trade deal, and I'm not ignoring anything.

Sony killed off Norman Osborn and made Harry the first Goblin, adding in a whole new storyline about there being a genetic illness, changing the death of Gwen Stacy, and so on. Did Marvel approve that, or did Sony just do it on their own?

I'm just wondering where the line is drawn, and if it works the same way for both Fox and Sony. I don't think any other studios own Marvel characters at the moment since Punisher and Blade are back at Marvel.

You bring up a good point. We had seen a number of characters get absolutely raped on the big screen. Galactus is number one example. Even though his appearance was not Galactus at all, it was still Galactus in nature in what it was trying to do. If you get what Im saying. I can't see anybody approving that at Marvel but it may have been enough to green light it.

Also didn't they do the same thing with Callisto in X3 what they did with Negasonic?

 

[ehh]

If Fox/Sony require approval from Marvel, I'm guessing that Marvel is pretty lenient considering everything that's happened in the latest X-Men films and the TASM series.

 

[wobbly]

I'm asking to what extent can they make changes without approval. I see what you're saying about the trade deal, and I'm not ignoring anything.

Sony killed off Norman Osborn and made Harry the first Goblin, adding in a whole new storyline about there being a genetic illness, changing the death of Gwen Stacy, and so on. Did Marvel approve that, or did Sony just do it on their own?

I'm just wondering where the line is drawn, and if it works the same way for both Fox and Sony. I don't think any other studios own Marvel characters at the moment since Punisher and Blade are back at Marvel.

Ok, with TASM & TASM2 Marvel had signed off on a new deal with Sony, agreeing to stay out of creative control on Sony's efforts and getting full merchandising profits in return as part of it all, so for those movies Marvel wouldn't have had a say in any changes one way or another. This is why Sony were seriously talking about spin-off's no-one wanted. They let Sony hang themselves there and reaped all the merchandising rewards while doing so.

With Fox it's evident they do still have a say. How much can Fox get away with before needing consent? Good question, but evidently a power set change is one they can't.

Now, of past misdeeds Galactus is among the greatest fubar's Fox has performed: Unfortunately there is a precedent for Galactus staying in space and using tendrils to suck a planet dry: The Silver Surfer cartoon. And the story being spun at the time the film came out was that his true form was at the heart of the infamous cloud, and Fox would argue we were given a brief glimpse of that with the fiery silhouette just before the Surfer has his Jesus moment. There was even talk they were 'saving' his full form reveal for a future Silver Surfer solo movie. Can't say I beleive that, but that was the talk at the time.

Also consider that this was Pre-Marvel studios, in the Avi Arid days. That guy would agree to pretty much anything. All black leather X-men suits? Organic webs? A 15ft tall Hulk? No problem, just put the dudes on screen. Worth noting however that in the scripts for both of Fox's F4 efforts they changed Doom's last name: 'Van Damme' in the Story flick, and 'Domashev' for Trank's. Both went back to Von Doom. Perhaps a Marvel mandate? Will likely never know.

So now we are Post Marvel Studios, under Feige, and post Disney buyout.

Have we seen a change in how Fox handles characters? Sort of. The last 3 X-Men films have taking liberties with the timeline (though arguably, since they first appeared in the 60's having the characters turn up anytime since might be valid within the contracts) but there's no obvious major deviation in any characters powers. The biggest character deviation is making Mystique a hero and Psylocke a villain. This might not be enough to warrant consent as boths powers were clearly the same as the books and Psylocke was an antagonist when she was first altered from her original form (I'd guess Mystique has probably turned hero for a spell at some point too...Magneto did, I know that much). Viper they may have been able to get around turning her into a mutant without consent by not naming her. Silver Samurai seems a trickier one, but while they changed who was in the suit, the look of it and the charged Katana were arguably comic book faithful.

FFINO seems like one that should have rung most alarm bells, but as pointed out earlier, with the multiple versions of the characters, especially considering alternate universe and all the 'What If' variants, Fox could argue that all the elements they used had some basis from the books. We know the origin at least was pretty much a lift from Ultimate. As for race changing Johnny that one would have been a PR nightmare if Disney objected to it.

Anyways, like I said earlier it is a good question. We at least know that a power set change (where there is no precedent for it in the books) does require approval and Fox are willing to trade to get that. How far Fox can go within that before needing approval is gonna be guesswork for us atm. For all we know there might have been some other trades for the changes Fox have made that we are completely unaware of.

 

[wobbly]

You bring up a good point. We had seen a number of characters get absolutely raped on the big screen. Galactus is number one example. Even though his appearance was not Galactus at all, it was still Galactus in nature in what it was trying to do. If you get what Im saying. I can't see anybody approving that at Marvel but it may have been enough to green light it.

Also didn't they do the same thing with Callisto in X3 what they did with Negasonic?

They kept the being able to sense other Mutants thing, but turned him into a her and added super speed. What they did with the Phoenix was more objectionable, though they probably didn't need consent for that.

EDIT: Sorry, was thinking of Caliban. Yup, they basically did do the same, changing powers completely. Ah Avi Arid...

 

[ehh]

Ok, with TASM & TASM2 Marvel had signed off on a new deal with Sony, agreeing to stay out of creative control on Sony's efforts and getting full merchandising profits in return as part of it all, so for those movies Marvel wouldn't have had a say in any changes one way or another. This is why Sony were seriously talking about spin-off's no-one wanted. They let Sony hang themselves there and reaped all the merchandising rewards while doing so.

I knew about Sony selling the merchandising and animation rights, but I didn't know that part of the agreement was getting full creative control? Was that revealed in the leaked emails?