The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - Part 7

[wobbly]

Which begs the question, just WTH did Marvel/Disney get for signing off on those XMen TV shows?

A good question. Some would suggest having a stake in the show (and therefore $$) was enough, but that alone doesn't seem like a sufficient incentive to let Fox's hold over the X-men be even stronger, especially given Disney's stance on getting all rights back under their wing if it all possible.

I keep coming back to this one though, as it is a bargaining chip beyond anything Marvel that Fox holds (and Disney would want): The distribution rights for Star Wars EP IV.

I don't think it out of bounds that might have been the deal sweetener Disney would have taken. They take Fox out of the equation for future releases/box sets/collector items etc, and get some money from the X-men spin off shows to boot (if they are successful).

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

A good question. Some would suggest having a stake in the show (and therefore $$) was enough, but that alone doesn't seem like a sufficient incentive to let Fox's hold over the X-men be even stronger, especially given Disney's stance on getting all rights back under their wing if it all possible.

I keep coming back to this one though, as it is a bargaining chip beyond anything Marvel that Fox holds (and Disney would want): The distribution rights for Star Wars EP IV.

I don't think it out of bounds that might have been the deal sweetener Disney would have taken. They take Fox out of the equation for future releases/box sets/collector items etc, and get some money from the X-men spin off shows to boot (if they are successful).

And it's possible Marvel got Kang and maybe other things short of the complete FF package. I think Doom or Galactus are unlikely because they should stay with the FF and if Fox gave either of them up, it would be obvious that the remaining rights had limited value. But if I were Fox and Marvel offered me something for Kang, I'd probably give him up fairly easily.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

... and it's even possible recent comments were just designed to throw us off so they can surprise everyone when they announce it, but I'm not real optimistic based on what we've been seeing.

 

[Zarex]

I doubt the X-Men TV rights deal involved the Star Wars rights. It was recently reported that TBS had to negotiate separately with both Disney and FOX to air all the SW films on their network. In any case, distribution rights to the original SW film are worth a heck of a lot more than the FF family rights. If FOX balked on parting with the FF, they are not going to hand over Star Wars.

And in light of the Ego/Negasonic deal, I can't see the X-Men deal involving just a character or two. The price of merely changing a characters powers was a living planet, but Marvel is going to renegotiate the 1993 agreement for scraps? That doesn't make sense.

So what was the price for granting additional Disney owned character rights to a competitor, increasing FOX's hold over the franchise and adding to an already crowded environment for superhero programming? There's only one price that FOX would be willing to part with, a licensing agreement that is worthless for the studio. One that fits the timing of the deal perfectly and is consistent with actions Disney/Marvel have taken previously. The FF.

The rights may not have transferred now, but the deal may have them coming back next year. Or 2018. Maybe the rights are reverting in 2020, in time for Phase 4. Maybe the agreement involved FOX simply agreeing not to make any more FF films and allowing the rights to revert in 2022 or 2023. Until I hear otherwise, I am going to "keep hope alive" that the X-Men deal brought the FF home.

 

[Darepool]

What if the deal was Fox guarantees (in writing) not to make anymore FF films and Disney bypasses negotiations and just waits it out. I suppose Fox could just give it back now, but as others have argued, much of it is about the optics.

 

[Darepool]

I'm just not a fan of these crumb deals, this character for that, etc. It's better then nothing, but still, I could understand the frustration of dealing with one side that has zero clue about the characters yet arguing the value.

 

[TheVileOne]

... and it's even possible recent comments were just designed to throw us off so they can surprise everyone when they announce it, but I'm not real optimistic based on what we've been seeing.

What was designed to throw us off?

 

[Zarex]

What was designed to throw us off?

The Variety Q&A:

Variety - Fox controls the film rights to “The X-Men” and “The Fantastic Four.” Could you partner with them on a movie as you did with Sony?

Feige - It’s an impossibility at this juncture. We certainly have enough films to keep us busy for a number of lifetimes.

 

[TheVileOne]

Seems pretty cut and dry right there.

 

[Web-Head]

Partnering is an impossibility because they already have the rights so they don't need to partner with Fox

 

[Zarex]

So let's say for S&G that the price of digging out the 1993 X-Men licensing agreeement and granting to FOX additional live action rights to Disney owned characters was more than a Fant4stic one sheet signed by the original cast. And members of the FF character family make an appearance at the tail end of the 2019 Avengers film. Can we brand Mr. Feige a liar for his "impossibility at this juncture" response in 2016 to a question about partnering with FOX?

 

[wobbly]

So let's say for S&G that the price of digging out the 1993 X-Men licensing agreeement and granting to FOX additional live action rights to Disney owned characters was more than a Fant4stic one sheet signed by the original cast. And members of the FF character family make an appearance at the tail end of the 2019 Avengers film. Can we brand Mr. Feige a liar for his "impossibility at this juncture" response in 2016 to a question about partnering with FOX?

Nope. His statement would in fact be entirely true.

It's only if it's later revealed a deal for partnering up ala Sony was done (and done when he made that statement or already in the works) that it would accurate to say he lied.

 

[wobbly]

It's interesting he was asked the question in that rather specific way. Why didn't the reporter follow up with "Are you, or will you be trying to get back the rights in full then?"

His answer to that would be have been more revealing, as I think most of us here already figured a Sony type deal with Fox wasn't a likely option.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Partnering is an impossibility because they already have the rights so they don't need to partner with Fox

From a literal interpretation, the only way Feige's statement can be true true is if Marvel already has the rights.

If Fox has the rights some sort of partnership, while unlikely, would at least be possible.

But I assume his intent was different than the actual words he used.

 

[Zarex]

Though the deal was subsequently rejected, we know the price of granting an extension on the Daredevil licensing agreement was Galactus and the Silver Surfer. And we recently found out that the price of altering (ALTERING!) the powers of NTAW was Ego. He ain't exactly an A-Lister, but Ego is certainly a significant part of the Marvel mythos.

So what was the price for handing over X-Men TV rights? It certainly wasn't money. In the two prior dealings with FOX Marvel could have but didn't ask for a check. Was it a piece of the action, a minority stake in FOX's TV outings? That could be part of it. But have you checked out the trailer for Legion? It looks interesting, but I highly doubt we are looking at a mainstream hit here. This ain't exactly GOT. And as I've stated before, Marvel could have put out a show about a mentally disturbed Mutant - I mean Inhuman - with vast powers and not given FOX a dime. The same goes for the "Mutant on the Run" show FOX has in development.

The only conclusion I can come to is that the price was a) Marvel characters that are b) bigger than Ego or the Galactus/Surfer combo asked for back in 2012. That leaves the entire FF character family.

If one of the self appointed experts on these boards can come to a more logical conclusion I would love to hear it.

 

[AlluAllu]

I'm starting to think that for X-Men tv rights Disney might have gotten something boring movie studio stuff that has nothing to do with Marvel.

 

[Zarex]

I suppose its possible, but why the change from the previously disclosed negotiations with FOX, when each time the price was Marvel characters? I suppose this time Disney/Marvel could have requested additional points on the X-Men movies, but to me that looks like a worse deal for both sides.

Everything, including the timing, pointed to the FF being compensation for the X-Men rights. So until I hear of a deal that makes more sense, that's what I am sticking with.

 

[TheVileOne]

From a literal interpretation, the only way Feige's statement can be true true is if Marvel already has the rights.

If Fox has the rights some sort of partnership, while unlikely, would at least be possible.

But I assume his intent was different than the actual words he used.

That's far from the only way at all. It's only wishful thinking to say his statement is true only because Marvel already has the Fantastic Four rights.

Also if Marvel has the rights back...why wouldn't they say so already? Why would they wait this long? It makes no sense.

When Marvel had the rights back for Ghost Rider, Daredevil, The Punisher, etc, we knew about it right away. When the co-production deal for Spider-Man was made we found out about it not long after.

Everyone is simply reading into everything and thinking there's some big conspiracy here where there isn't. The media is guilty of it as well.

 

[Zarex]

That's far from the only way at all. It's only wishful thinking to say his statement is true only because Marvel already has the Fantastic Four rights.

Also if Marvel has the rights back...why wouldn't they say so already? Why would they wait this long? It makes no sense.

When Marvel had the rights back for Ghost Rider, Daredevil, The Punisher, etc, we knew about it right away. When the co-production deal for Spider-Man was made we found out about it not long after.

Everyone is simply reading into everything and thinking there's some big conspiracy here where there isn't. The media is guilty of it as well.

This is simply not true. The rights reversions for Ghost Rider, Daredevil and the Punisher were all disclosed during the same Feige interview in Entertainment Weekly. As the rights were all held at different studios they did not revert simultaneously.

And let me ask again. What do you think Marvel received in exchange for cracking open the 1993 agreement and granting additional Disney character rights to a competitor? Try to keep in mind the Ego-NTAW deal and the Daredevil-Galactus/Surfer deal that was not completed when forming your response.

 

[TheVileOne]

Though the deal was subsequently rejected, we know the price of granting an extension on the Daredevil licensing agreement was Galactus and the Silver Surfer. And we recently found out that the price of altering (ALTERING!) the powers of NTAW was Ego. He ain't exactly an A-Lister, but Ego is certainly a significant part of the Marvel mythos.

So what was the price for handing over X-Men TV rights? It certainly wasn't money. In the two prior dealings with FOX Marvel could have but didn't ask for a check. Was it a piece of the action, a minority stake in FOX's TV outings? That could be part of it. But have you checked out the trailer for Legion? It looks interesting, but I highly doubt we are looking at a mainstream hit here. This ain't exactly GOT. And as I've stated before, Marvel could have put out a show about a mentally disturbed Mutant - I mean Inhuman - with vast powers and not given FOX a dime. The same goes for the "Mutant on the Run" show FOX has in development.

For one thing Inhumans aren't mutants. Also for another, Marvel and ABC are still putting out an Inhumans TV series. So they are still doing that.

I imagine this deal is mutually beneficial for all. Here's why. As of now, all of Marvel's TV shows, except where it comes to the animated ones on Disney XD, are supposed to be a part of the greater Marvel Universe. Despite the separation, everything is said to be in the same continuity.

So what does that mean? Marvel and Disney don't want to start a whole brand-new line of X-Men live-action TV shows that would conflict with their already established TV shows. Marvel likely benefits financially from this deal, and Fox gets to expand their X-Men franchise to TV.

Also, live action TV may have been a grey area in the previous deal. I never saw the contracts for the film rights, but it might've been a legally grey area that prevented Marvel from doing anything live-action with mutants or X-Men on TV all those years.

Keep in mind, that a lot of current TV deals for IP now include both film and TV. Legendary just acquired the rights for Dune, and those rights include both film and TV for the book.

Since we don't know the terms or contracts at all, one could potentially assume that the new deal simply clarifies that Fox also control over the mutants and X-Men in live-action TV as well, while Marvel also still gets a cut of the deal and gets put in as a co-producer.

The only conclusion I can come to is that the price was a) Marvel characters that are b) bigger than Ego or the Galactus/Surfer combo asked for back in 2012. That leaves the entire FF character family.

If one of the self appointed experts on these boards can come to a more logical conclusion I would love to hear it.

I just did. The logical conclusion is that there were legal boundaries for Marvel to control X-Men and mutant IP on live-action TV. Case in point, the Mutant X lawsuit. Yes lo and behold, the long lost Mutant X TV series. 20th Century Fox sued Marvel over this show. The lawsuit was eventually settled. 20th Century Fox claimed Mutant X was a copyright violation of X-Men.

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/mar/05/business/fi-mutant5

http://mutantxarchive.livejournal.com/130381.html

So think about this. In 2001, Fox SUED Marvel because Marvel had a live-action TV series called Mutant X.

So Marvel was more than likely handcuffed. They can't do their own TV show using mutants or the word mutants. Even though its TV, Fox will still try to claim some sort of ownership.

Again this way, Fox gets to expand their franchise, and the terms of Marvel TV/Fox TV and X-Men are more broadly defined. And Marvel also gets financial renumeration for the deal.

 

[TheVileOne]

This is simply not true. The rights reversions for Ghost Rider, Daredevil and the Punisher were all disclosed during the same Feige interview in Entertainment Weekly. As the rights were all held at different studios they did not revert simultaneously.

And let me ask again. What do you think Marvel received in exchange for cracking open the 1993 agreement and granting additional Disney character rights to a competitor? Try to keep in mind the Ego-NTAW deal and the Daredevil-Galactus/Surfer deal that was not completed when forming your response.

Those deals are illegitimate, irrelevant and invalid examples when it comes to what happened here. Check back to 2001 and look what happened when Marvel tried to do their own Mutant-themed/X-Men franchise TV series in Mutant X that had NOTHING to do with 20th Century Fox. 20th Century Fox attempted to block the show from getting made and started a lawsuit that lasted for two years.

The production company for Mutant X, Tribune, also later sued Marvel over the syndicated TV series. I cite for you exhibit A. A Variety article from the year 2003.

http://variety.com/2003/scene/markets-festivals/marvel-strikes-back-vs-mutant-x-case-1117894961/

But, according to Tribune, 20th had a contract that gave it the right to rule on any TV series spinoffs, a fact Marvel allegedly kept from Tribune. When 20th sued Tribune and Marvel over the too-close similarity of “Mutant X” to “X-Men,” Tribune said it had to spend millions of dollars retooling the show and more millions fighting the 20th lawsuit, which was finally settled out of court last month.

Very interesting.

I think what's more telling here is that Marvel and Disney actually did not have complete control over mutants, X-Men, and live-action X-Men on TV. Or maybe they do, but let's say they were to make their own X-Men TV show. They make an X-Men TV show with all the iconic classic characters. No involvement from Fox at all, but then Fox will then legally posture and say, "Hey! That's not fair! They are ripping us off!" There's a clear legal boundary there.

My guess is the new deal more comprehensively spells out the character and property rights. Who has what. Who can use what in what capacity, and again, Marvel gets a cut of the action.

 

[wobbly]

The court papers for the mutant x lawsuit revealed Fox had movie (theatrical release) rights only. Marvel did retain the tv rights, but couldn't do anything there without Fox (Google it).

So...Neither could go tv with X-Men without a new deal allowing one or the other to do it.

That the show is basically a Fox baby suggests they had to negotiate something to get that.

 

[TheVileOne]

So there you go. Marvel had a legal roadblock that basically prevented them from doing X-Men on TV. As you just said wobbly, they couldn't do anything with X-Men on TV "without Fox."

By going forth with this deal, Fox can expand their X-Men franchise with TV, and Marvel gets a cut of it. Terms are clarified and and expanded.

None of this means rights for Fantastic Four characters changed hands.

Just because they agreed to a new deal to allow an X-Men TV series spin-off to happen doesn't mean Fantastic Four was given in exchange.

 

[TheVileOne]

The court papers for the mutant x lawsuit revealed Fox had movie (theatrical release) rights only. Marvel did retain the tv rights, but couldn't do anything there without Fox (Google it).

So...Neither could go tv with X-Men without a new deal allowing one or the other to do it.

That the show is basically a Fox baby suggests they had to negotiate something to get that.

Guess what. I Googled it. Here's what I found:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/2001... CENTURY FOX FILM CORP. v. MARVEL ENTERPRISES

Marvel reserves all television rights [based on the Property] (other than television rights with respect to the Pictures produced hereunder). However, prior to the reversion (if any) of the Rights ... Marvel shall not, without Fox's prior written consent, which consent may be withheld in Fox's sole discretion, produce, distribute or exploit or authorize the production, distribution or exploitation of any live-action motion picture for free television exhibition, pay television exhibition, non-theatrical exhibition, or home video exhibition (on cassettes or discs) or any feature-length animated motion picture for non-theatrical exhibition or home video exhibition (on cassettes or discs).4

BOOM.

The fact of the matter is this. There was a legal stalemate here. Marvel had the TV rights to the X-Men property, but they had a legal boundary keeping them from going forth with their own X-Men TV shows. Hence, Mutant X which ended up in a three-year lawsuit. Fox did not have the rights to produce X-Men TV shows.

This deal is mutually beneficial because Marvel really couldn't do any type of X-Men TV series without Fox's involvement. Not only that, they wouldn't be able to fit into their grander MCU.

This way Marvel gets cut into everything and Jeph Loeb gets to be involved.

All this was done without Fantastic Four changing hands. Bing. Bang. Boom.

And here's another matter entirely. The fact of the matter is this. And this is what some fans here are not willing to admit to themselves. Marvel and Disney are in a position right now where they do not badly need the characters of X-Men and Fantastic Four. They are doing fine without them. They've established the gold standard for a shared cinematic universe that's leaving the rest of the industry trying to play catch-up. They turn C-list characters into A-list branded franchises and global billion dollar film franchises. When Feige says they have enough films to last them lifetimes, it's the truth. People here aren't getting it.

People thought Ant-Man might flop. It was a success, and it's getting a sequel. Doctor Strange? It's heading toward $650 million worldwide and it's going to probably break over $230 million domestically. A live-action movie starring DOCTOR STRANGE.

Now the empire is continuing across network TV, digital streaming on demand TV, and more. Marvel's got a nice backlog and set of characters and a good reputation for delivering satisfying experiences for all ages. All that can be done without making huge payouts or exchanges for Fantastic Four or X-Men character sets.

 

[wobbly]

Disney ain't hard up for God's sake.

Seems unlikely they'd allow Fox any expansion of their hold on X-Men just for a stake in the show.