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

[Zant]

Marvel imposed a ban on Fox owned characters appearing in their animated shows for a while now, but Marvel Animation just used Kang for an episode of Avengers assemble. Honest mistake perhaps?

 

[Dark Raven]

He was in Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes before.

 

[NotNickFury]

I mean they can certainly offer to make a deal like they did with Sony, but I don't think Marvel finds the FF to be worth that much effort to go after like with Spiderman. They are co-producing Xmen tv series, and its safe to say Marvel got something out of the deal to allow that. Whether its FF rights we still don't know.

Or it's nothing and not some huge secret that makes it safe to assume? If there were news, you wouldn't sit on that until a year or so after the fact, only to say 'Hey, remember that news a year or two ago about Marvel having a hand in that X-Men TV show? Well, here's why!' That wouldn't make sense. I'm sure Marvel Studios probably would want Fantastic Four, but I doubt they're as eager as some folks on this here forum.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

If we're being honest with ourselves, do we actually think Marvel's actively trying to get the F4 back or do we fans care more about it then they do?

Marvel, unlike Fox, cares about what the fans care about. They've been as successful as they have by giving fans what they want.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Marvel imposed a ban on Fox owned characters appearing in their animated shows for a while now, but Marvel Animation just used Kang for an episode of Avengers assemble. Honest mistake perhaps?

I doubt it's mistake. But we don't know if it's just more evidence of the thawing of the cold war, or something more.

 

[Web-Head]

No surprise
https://***********/MarvelousRealm/status/765623867335319552

 

[Endeavor]

LOL

We've been saying that since before the damn movie started filming.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

with a few notable exceptions, fox really does suck.

 

[NotNickFury]

How reliable is that source? After all, especially in the realm of comic book news, anonymous sources have said things with no backing or didn't go on the record. A crew member within ABC Studios said that Agent Carter was guaranteed to be renewed...that turned out to be nonsense. So how is this more credible if it's another source that doesn't go on the record? They've got nothing to lose at this point.

 

[Web-Head]

How reliable is that source? After all, especially in the realm of comic book news, anonymous sources have said things with no backing or didn't go on the record. A crew member within ABC Studios said that Agent Carter was guaranteed to be renewed...that turned out to be nonsense. So how is this more credible if it's another source that doesn't go on the record? They've got nothing to lose at this point.

It's coming from the Hollywood Reporter, it's pretty reliable. Plus it's not like everyone else didn't know they were making the movie just to keep the rights, so it's not a big stretch to think it's true.

Plus, he/she does have something to lose...If they go on record, it could ruin their career. They won't want them around other films.

 

[Endeavor]

How reliable is that source? After all, especially in the realm of comic book news, anonymous sources have said things with no backing or didn't go on the record. A crew member within ABC Studios said that Agent Carter was guaranteed to be renewed...that turned out to be nonsense. So how is this more credible if it's another source that doesn't go on the record? They've got nothing to lose at this point.

Unless they're in their 60's and ready for retirement.. yes they do.
Even then, they might get in trouble due to confidentiality agreements.
There are very valid reasons why people with legit information can't go on record.

 

[NotNickFury]

And at the same time, from a reporting perspective, if they're afraid to say their name, then you don't know if it's true. Not every source can turn out to be a Deep Throat. I don't doubt Fox would do this for Fantastic Four in particular, but I also don't just take an anonymous source's word at face value.

 

[Urich Leeds]

If we're being honest with ourselves, do we actually think Marvel's actively trying to get the F4 back or do we fans care more about it then they do?

They definitely care, and are likely buying their time. They know Fox can't do anything more with the franchise, and are simply waiting for Fox to be ready for a deal.

If I had to make a guess, I'd say we'll see a deal done by 2020, with The Fantastic Four AND X-Men joining the MCU.

 

[TheVileOne]

That's an older story. Trade articles, Deadline included, use those unnamed sources in those types of stories all the time. You can take them for what they are worth. Believe them or not.

 

[Zarex]

Marvel imposed a ban on Fox owned characters appearing in their animated shows for a while now, but Marvel Animation just used Kang for an episode of Avengers assemble. Honest mistake perhaps?

FOX controlled Marvel characters are used sparingly on the XD shows, but Deadpool was featured in one ASM episode, Wolverine has been in a few and the FF were on Hulk and the Agents of Smash.

 

[Dr Tactics]

We all Just have to wait........................................................................... Assume nothing but maintain hope. That's all it is.

 

[Val_Zod]

Or it's nothing and not some huge secret that makes it safe to assume? If there were news, you wouldn't sit on that until a year or so after the fact, only to say 'Hey, remember that news a year or two ago about Marvel having a hand in that X-Men TV show? Well, here's why!' That wouldn't make sense. I'm sure Marvel Studios probably would want Fantastic Four, but I doubt they're as eager as some folks on this here forum.

As I said, we don't know what they got out of it. And rights reversion is hardly ever reported and is usually discovered through other means like a film announcement or a character folded in being included into a project. The truth is, we are likely to not learn what they got from the deal until much later. And who said Marvel was eager? I even stated they would more likely prefer just waiting it out.

 

[TheVileOne]

Fox isn't letting go of those film rights anytime soon. People wanted to believe the Comic-Con myth too badly.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I think it's an over-simplification to say they made the film to keep the rights.

I suspect it would be more accurate to say that they wanted to take another shot at FF and the rights reversion date forced them to push through with it even though they were having problems.

If not for the rights issue, I think they would have put the brakes on in the spring of 2014 when they were having doubts about Trank and the script wasn't right. But they couldn't put things on hold to work out the problems because the deadline was looming, so they sent Simon Kinberg to Louisiana to baby-sit Trank and Kinberg and Trank put in late nights re-writing the script as they were shooting.

But they did all that because, in the spring of 2014, the rights still had value and they wanted to try to make a franchise out of the FF and thought they could.

The situation is different now. There's no reasonable way they can salvage this before the next reversion date. The rights no longer retain any value for Fox and there's zero chance they'll ever make a franchise out of it (without Marvel's help).

 

[TheVileOne]

It didn't keep a lot of blogs from writing false reports that a deal had been made to bring Fantastic Four back to Marvel.

 

[Web-Head]

Fox isn't letting go of those film rights anytime soon. People wanted to believe the Comic-Con myth too badly.

Why not? What would be the point of them keeping them? Just to say "Haha, Marvel...we still have the rights but can't do anything with them?"

 

[Random490]

Marvel imposed a ban on Fox owned characters appearing in their animated shows for a while now, but Marvel Animation just used Kang for an episode of Avengers assemble. Honest mistake perhaps?

He was in Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes before.

As was The Fantastic Four, super skrull, and galactus

I don't think Marvel is banning characters per se, but rather choosing to focus more on properties that they do own to strengthen them. It's like when everyone thought they canceled to F4 comic to hurt Fant4stic box office, when at the time the movie was out F4 was front and center in a major company wide crossover event. Then they had Doom in Iron Man, Thing in Guardians, and Human Torch in Inhumans. And they did this to help promote those properties.

If F4 or X-men appearing in Avengers Assembles helps further their brand than they totally would. For a while X-men was at the forefront of Marvel, then it was Spider-man, than Iron Man, now the Avengers. Which coincided with their movies. It's not about hurting another studio, but helping their own sales.

 

[TheVileOne]

Why not? What would be the point of them keeping them? Just to say "Haha, Marvel...we still have the rights but can't do anything with them?"

Because in the entertainment industry, IP is everything. And those rights are more valuable to Marvel/Disney right now than they are to Fox. And if Fox allowed those rights to go back to a competitor, it would make them look bad.

 

[Web-Head]

Not if Marvel/Disney pony up and give them a good chunk of change for the rights.

 

[Val_Zod]

Because in the entertainment industry, IP is everything. And those rights are more valuable to Marvel/Disney right now than they are to Fox. And if Fox allowed those rights to go back to a competitor, it would make them look bad.

And what is the reason for IP being valuable? Bottom line. an establish brand like Fantastic Four means Fox could have used the built in awareness to help bring audiences. They've all but squandered that. They want to stick to these rights for as long as possible?Sure, but better be ready to deliver another bomb if you're not ready to part with it. That is if they can convince their investors..