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

[Willie Lumpkin]

A modification of the 1993 licensing agreement allowing FOX to produce television programs featuring the X-Men family of characters in cooperation with Marvel Television.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Since Fox will not make another FF film in the next few years, the "value" of the FF rights becomes a very simple equation:

FF Rights Value = What Marvel is Willing to Pay for Them

If Marvel is willing to pay a dollar and nothing more, that's the value of the rights. Fox can take the dollar or take nothing.

The only complexity or ambiguity is that it's a game of poker and Fox doesn't know what cards Marvel is holding. If Marvel offers $10 million, is that as high as they'll go, or will they go higher?

Just because Marvel can potentially make films using the FF characters and make a lot of money, doesn't mean Marvel is willing to pay more than $1.

They could make billions off of Howard The Duck. They're Marvel. They've already shown the ability with Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy to turn relatively unknown characters into cash cows. And they already have plans for films that extend past the time the rights will revert for nothing.

 

[Endeavor]

They are not going to overpay in order to get live action movie distribution rights back.

I lean towards agreeing with you on the point that giving FOX full merchandise rights would be a mistake, and while not as bad as the deals Marvel made in the 90's, it would come close. I also agree that even though Disney could eventually turn the FF into a money making machine, the IP isn't anywhere near being worth billions right now, thanks to FOX ... So, if you had to put a $ value on it, for the switch to happen right now, what number would you put down? What do you think would be fair for Disney to pay and FOX to accept ( allowing them to save some face and make some profit).

 

[Endeavor]

I think She-Hulk might be able to carry a movie better than Hulk. While Hulk is the bigger character in comics, he hasn't had a hit movie yet and the general audience tend to think of him as a mostly mute, raging beast. I think She-Hulk would have broader appeal. She would be an intelligent superhero making all the wise cracks and it would fit with the typical Marvel humour in the vein of Iron Man or GOTG.

It's very likely a complicated scenario because of the rights Universal still holds.
Much like the Sony papers have shown us how Spidey-related characters were bound to their contract and withheld from Marvel, the same is probably true for Hulk. Jennifer is going to be tied to his IP. Which means Marvel can't do a She-Hulk centric film without Universal getting to distribute it.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I lean towards agreeing with you on the point that giving FOX full merchandise rights would be a mistake, and while not as bad as the deals Marvel made in the 90's, it would come close.

While a full merchandise deal would be crazy, if I were Marvel, I'd seriously consider a merchandising deal that would benefit both sides. If structured properly, I think it could be a win/win. Marvel does get a cut of Fox films (with zero risk) and they're currently not making anything off of Wolverine action figures so (particularly if they could get FF and greatly strengthen their own Universe with those characters), I think it could make sense.

 

[DrCosmic]

Those characters dwarf

Storm
Phoenix
Invisible Woman
Rogue
White Queen
Shadowcat
Mystique
Magik
Dazzler
Psylocke?

I think the bolded characters could hold down a solo franchise. All of them could handle a solo movie in addition to their team time. I'd take almost any of them over Legion, that's for sure.

If you haven't heard people criticize MCU villains live the films or not (love demo personally)

IF FF Villains were in a MCU it would help because MCU heroes have weak rogue galleries.

Iron Man trilogy probably had the weakest three villains ever for such a popular series

Iron Man vs Doom or Sony's Osbourne would be better than any of the three films

Just like fighting Kang or Galactus is better than any villain Avengers can have not named Loki Ultron or Thanos. If you disagree with that then hey but its the truth

Yeah, I think you're misunderstanding Marvel's villain problem. The problem is that they don't use villains to their potential. It's not like they're just nailing villains and they villains they have aren't good enough, it's that they don't care, and don't need to care, to make their villains menacing or even all that interesting at times. They regularly take interesting villains and make them uninteresting. Giving them MORE interesting villains will not fix the problem one tiny little bit.

Since Fox will not make another FF film in the next few years, the "value" of the FF rights becomes a very simple equation:

FF Rights Value = What Marvel is Willing to Pay for Them

If Marvel is willing to pay a dollar and nothing more, that's the value of the rights. Fox can take the dollar or take nothing.

The only complexity or ambiguity is that it's a game of poker and Fox doesn't know what cards Marvel is holding. If Marvel offers $10 million, is that as high as they'll go, or will they go higher?

Just because Marvel can potentially make films using the FF characters and make a lot of money, doesn't mean Marvel is willing to pay more than $1.

They could make billions off of Howard The Duck. They're Marvel. They've already shown the ability with Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy to turn relatively unknown characters into cash cows. And they already have plans for films that extend past the time the rights will revert for nothing.

Opportunity cost. Cost of doing business. Shareholder perception. The FF still has a value to any corporation that has access to it, and if it's only worth $1 to Marvel, there will be no deal.

I think a lot of this is based around the assumption that Fox will not make another crappy FF film, which is odd as they were still planning on FFINO 2 not too long ago, even after the reports. Another reboot in 4-5 years doesn't strike me as all that strange.

The 'hope' afaic is that Marvel will/has given something Fox wants for the FF, which is worth something to Marvel even though they don't need it financially... ever.

I'm all for rooting for the home team, but to whip up a narrative of the Away Team just for big bold declarations like this seems like poor sportsmanship.

 

[Zarex]

I think a lot of this is based around the assumption that Fox will not make another crappy FF film, which is odd as they were still planning on FFINO 2 not too long ago, even after the reports. Another reboot in 4-5 years doesn't strike me as all that strange.

Another reboot in 4-5 years strikes me as the strangest thing possible With three awful FOX FF films in the can, at least two of which lost the company money, why would anyone expect the next one to do better? The studio went cheap with this one, bringing in a low cost cast and delaying the team "suiting up" until well into the feature. Would FOX dare to do this again a few years from now?

And if not, how could they possibly justify putting the money required to showcase the team correctly onscreen, as well as hire actors who are box office draws? And that's assuming there are prominent actors - and directors - who would agree to associate themselves with the FF franchise if all the money was dropped on their respective doorsteps.

Thanks in part to posters on this thread, FFINO came into theaters with 2.5 strikes against it. Any attempt by FOX to push out another rights grab is going to be met by even more disdain. Can you imagine the negative headlines if FOX hires a writer for a reboot/sequel? The film will be dead before the first word of the script is written.

I don't see any brash young producer calling a meeting with the Murdoch's to pitch his FF reboot. The FF at FOX is DED

 

[Dark Raven]

I think the bolded characters could hold down a solo franchise. All of them could handle a solo movie in addition to their team time. I'd take almost any of them over Legion, that's for sure.

I'd like a Dazzler movie, but as the concept was originally conceived back in the 70s. Her comic was meant to be the cross-promotional tie-in for an actual movie, and that's what I would like to see.

I would rather the MCU/ Disney handled her though of all the X-Men-related characters. I want disco Dazzler on skates as a fully-fledged musical. That would make it stand out from all the other comic book movies. I don't know who could star as Allison Blaire, but it should be an actual singer with a tie-in soundtrack album and songs released into the charts. Ideally someone who is like a young Britney Spears but who has a much more versatile voice and can handle big musical numbers.

I would take someone like Melissa Benoist if she weren't Supergirl, or she could handle the extra time for a movie outside of her series.

 

[Patchwork Man]

I think She-Hulk might be able to carry a movie better than Hulk. While Hulk is the bigger character in comics, he hasn't had a hit movie yet and the general audience tend to think of him as a mostly mute, raging beast. I think She-Hulk would have broader appeal. She would be an intelligent superhero making all the wise cracks and it would fit with the typical Marvel humour in the vein of Iron Man or GOTG.

A missed opportunity. They're ignoring her when she can do all that, and more (she goes places and gains other powers, if they take her arc that far).

 

[Flint Marko]

I never want to see a She-Hulk movie, but I'm sure Marvel could make me change my mind. I never liked the Punisher or Ghost Rider but I do now.

 

[Patchwork Man]

How does one not like Ghost Rider?

I'll admit I'm way behind on AoS, but I don't like the idea of GR driving a car.

 

[Darepool]

A missed opportunity. They're ignoring her when she can do all that, and more (she goes places and gains other powers, if they take her arc that far).

Missed opportunity is having tried and failed. The opportunity still exists assuming the Universal hurdle can be overcome.

 

[Spiderine]

Even if She Hulk can't have her own solo film its not like they still can't introduce and feature the character in other films. I don't know the situation with She Hulk and Universal. She may be tied to Hulk but they can do whatever they like with her if she can't have her own film.

 

[Spiderine]

I think the bolded characters could hold down a solo franchise. All of them could handle a solo movie in addition to their team time. I'd take almost any of them over Legion, that's for sure.



Yeah, I think you're misunderstanding Marvel's villain problem. The problem is that they don't use villains to their potential. It's not like they're just nailing villains and they villains they have aren't good enough, it's that they don't care, and don't need to care, to make their villains menacing or even all that interesting at times. They regularly take interesting villains and make them uninteresting. Giving them MORE interesting villains will not fix the problem one tiny little bit.



Opportunity cost. Cost of doing business. Shareholder perception. The FF still has a value to any corporation that has access to it, and if it's only worth $1 to Marvel, there will be no deal.

I think a lot of this is based around the assumption that Fox will not make another crappy FF film, which is odd as they were still planning on FFINO 2 not too long ago, even after the reports. Another reboot in 4-5 years doesn't strike me as all that strange.

The 'hope' afaic is that Marvel will/has given something Fox wants for the FF, which is worth something to Marvel even though they don't need it financially... ever.

I'm all for rooting for the home team, but to whip up a narrative of the Away Team just for big bold declarations like this seems like poor sportsmanship.

I don't believe a sequel to FF was ever in the cards. They just didn't come out and immediately admit it was a disaster and took it off the schedule. Can't really blame them. On the other hand could you imagine the reaction if they announced another attempt at a reboot on their own without Marvel assistance? Do you think they would be foolish to put a decent budget around FF at this stage in the game?

 

[Zarex]

That's the insurmountable problem surrounding any talk of a FOX FF sequel/reboot - What's it going to cost? The last one featured poorly lit hallways and warehouses and a sprinkling of poorly rendered CGI superhero action. You absolutely have to provide a bigger budget to have a chance at BO success.

But one look at the declining BO for films and you absolutely cannot spend increase the budget for another FOX FF film. Even matching the FFINO budget guarantees that the studio absorbs another 10 figure loss. This guarantees that the fourth time won't be the charm at FOX.

 

[Snaaaaake!]

What does Disney paying 4b for marvel have anything to do with what I said?

Again I NEVER said FF was worth 1-10b.


BUT


If you haven't heard people criticize MCU villains live the films or not (love demo personally)

IF FF Villains were in a MCU it would help because MCU heroes have weak rogue galleries.

Iron Man trilogy probably had the weakest three villains ever for such a popular series

Iron Man vs Doom or Sony's Osbourne would be better than any of the three films

Just like fighting Kang or Galactus is better than any villain Avengers can have not named Loki Ultron or Thanos. If you disagree with that then hey but its the truth

The MCU simply need to put more effort in the villains they do have. I'd prefer them doing that effective immediately before even getting FF's gallery back otherwise what's the point?

..............Then again as "Weak" as MCU's Iron Man villains (or MCU villains in general) have been on film, one could argue that they've all still been better than any of Fox's versions of Doom. So I can't see Marvel Studios doing any worse if they got him back.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The MCU simply need to put more effort in the villains they do have. I'd prefer them doing that effective immediately before even getting FF's gallery back otherwise what's the point?

..............Then again as "Weak" as MCU's Iron Man villains (or MCU villains in general) have been on film, one could argue that they've all still been better than any of Fox's versions of Doom. So I can't see Marvel Studios doing any worse if they got him back.

There is no argument to be had. The MCU has never had a villain anywhere near as bad as either version of Dr. Doom, and the vast majority of their villains are better than the likes of Apocalypse and Francis as well. They are also way better than most recent DC villains like Lex Luthor, Doomsday, Joker, Enchantress, Hector Hammond, and Parallax. And Sony's recent villains like Electro, Rhino, Weird Ed Goblin, and Lizard.

Marvel's "villain problems" are really overstated.

 

[Snaaaaake!]

There is no argument to be had. The MCU has never had a villain anywhere near as bad as either version of Dr. Doom, and the vast majority of their villains are better than the likes of Apocalypse and Francis as well. They are also way better than most recent DC villains like Lex Luthor, Doomsday, Joker, Enchantress, Hector Hammond, and Parallax. And Sony's recent villains like Electro, Rhino, Weird Ed Goblin, and Lizard.

Marvel's "villain problems" are really overstated.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[DrCosmic]

Another reboot in 4-5 years strikes me as the strangest thing possible With three awful FOX FF films in the can, at least two of which lost the company money, why would anyone expect the next one to do better? The studio went cheap with this one, bringing in a low cost cast and delaying the team "suiting up" until well into the feature. Would FOX dare to do this again a few years from now?

And if not, how could they possibly justify putting the money required to showcase the team correctly onscreen, as well as hire actors who are box office draws? And that's assuming there are prominent actors - and directors - who would agree to associate themselves with the FF franchise if all the money was dropped on their respective doorsteps.

Thanks in part to posters on this thread, FFINO came into theaters with 2.5 strikes against it. Any attempt by FOX to push out another rights grab is going to be met by even more disdain. Can you imagine the negative headlines if FOX hires a writer for a reboot/sequel? The film will be dead before the first word of the script is written.

I don't see any brash young producer calling a meeting with the Murdoch's to pitch his FF reboot. The FF at FOX is DED

Mmm... I think this is mostly hyperbole. FF 2005 was mediocre, and FFINO cost $120M. Prominent actors do potentially crappy films. Disdained films can still make billions. No name directors make decent films, and as long as there are licensing deals the cost may be justifiable based on those alone.

If the sentiment is that Marvel would do a *Better* job than Fox, I agree 1000%. If the sentiment is that Fox has zero chance of making any more money off of this franchise, it's more convincing when based on corporate financial principles, not critical judgements and hyperbole.

I'd like a Dazzler movie, but as the concept was originally conceived back in the 70s. Her comic was meant to be the cross-promotional tie-in for an actual movie, and that's what I would like to see.

I would rather the MCU/ Disney handled her though of all the X-Men-related characters. I want disco Dazzler on skates as a fully-fledged musical. That would make it stand out from all the other comic book movies. I don't know who could star as Allison Blaire, but it should be an actual singer with a tie-in soundtrack album and songs released into the charts. Ideally someone who is like a young Britney Spears but who has a much more versatile voice and can handle big musical numbers.

I would take someone like Melissa Benoist if she weren't Supergirl, or she could handle the extra time for a movie outside of her series.

That would be so fracking awesome. Yes, this is precisely what I was thinking of when I bolded her name. That said, MCU would never do one of this with their heroes, much less ever focus on Dazzler, so it's actually more likely to happen at FOX, I think. If there were someone pushing this as hard as Reynolds pushed Deadpool, at a similar budget, it could happen.

I don't believe a sequel to FF was ever in the cards. They just didn't come out and immediately admit it was a disaster and took it off the schedule. Can't really blame them. On the other hand could you imagine the reaction if they announced another attempt at a reboot on their own without Marvel assistance? Do you think they would be foolish to put a decent budget around FF at this stage in the game?

That's one way to look at it. Another way is how can I keep my corporate job if my shareholders think I threw away a potentially billion dollar franchise for nothing? And there was licensing deals? And the franchise has been profitable in the past? I might as well start packing up the office right now.

Again, I really get the critical smashing this movie deserves, but that doesn't change how corporations work and how they value things. And Fox is a corporation first and a filmmaker second, therein lies the problem.

That's the insurmountable problem surrounding any talk of a FOX FF sequel/reboot - What's it going to cost? The last one featured poorly lit hallways and warehouses and a sprinkling of poorly rendered CGI superhero action. You absolutely have to provide a bigger budget to have a chance at BO success.

But one look at the declining BO for films and you absolutely cannot spend increase the budget for another FOX FF film. Even matching the FFINO budget guarantees that the studio absorbs another 10 figure loss. This guarantees that the fourth time won't be the charm at FOX.

See, this assumption that it is *absolutely* *impossible* to spend a SFX budget more wisely than FFINO is not only a false assumption, but judging by the amount of reshoots involved, the budget they had was essentially for a movie and a half. This idea that budgets can't increase for sequels, even though they continually do is equally as... tenuous.

I get the passion, but you're seriously going to guarantee that a $120M movie cannot make $200M plus? Worldwide? This is a mathematical impossibility?

Since we're guaranteeing stuff here, allow me to join in. If Fox follows these simple steps they'll break even on their next FF film:
1) Keep the budget medium, around $100M
2) Get a good story that's been done before
3) Get a flashy fun cheap easily controllable director ala, Doug Liman of 2013. DJ Caruso of 2016. Someone like that who directs mediocre action movies or whose last hit was 10+ years ago.
4) Don't make a new film out of your director's original film
5) So that you don't have a big news story about your director hating your film right before it comes out.

$200 Mil, easy as pie, even if it only has two real action sequences (like FF 2005), even if no one has heard of half of the actors (like FF 2005), even if the Director is a one note whatever. The skeptical press will still say it's an improvement on the last dumpster fire. To say nothing of if any exceptional talent finds its way to your superhero franchise. If they did that twice in a row, FFINO would become irrelevant beyond being the new benchmark for the quality of FF films... and whoever can make that happen will get a huge bonus and a raise.

As much as I'd want Marvel to have this one, you're creating impossibilities where they simply do not exist.

Also, it's funny that the 'Keep Hope Alive' thread has turned into a thread trying to remove any hope of Fox making another sequel. Keep inevitability alive doesn't have the same ring to it, methinks.

 

[NotNickFury]

Again, I've yet to hear the common complaint be that the MCU's villains are bad. Generally speaking, they aren't poorly done (though I do hear the occasional complaint about Ultron). The problem I hear is that they aren't memorable, which is at least valid. They can't all be Loki and they certainly can't be the likes of Fisk, Kilgrave, or Cottonmouth, or even the villains used in the Nolan films, but the issue I see with the MCU's villains is that they don't leave an impression. Them being better than the competition isn't saying much when Malkeith or Yellowjacket aren't any more cookie cutter or by the numbers than Apocalypse.

If you want a good villain, you want an antagonist who is fun or interesting to watch, but you don't want them to overshadow the heroes. The MCU hasn't had many villains that are all that interesting. A step above the others in recent years, but that isn't saying much.

 

[DrCosmic]

Again, I've yet to hear the common complaint be that the MCU's villains are bad. Generally speaking, they aren't poorly done (though I do hear the occasional complaint about Ultron). The problem I hear is that they aren't memorable, which is at least valid. They can't all be Loki and they certainly can't be the likes of Fisk, Kilgrave, or Cottonmouth, or even the villains used in the Nolan films, but the issue I see with the MCU's villains is that they don't leave an impression. Them being better than the competition isn't saying much when Malkeith or Yellowjacket aren't any more cookie cutter or by the numbers than Apocalypse.

If you want a good villain, you want an antagonist who is fun or interesting to watch, but you don't want them to overshadow the heroes. The MCU hasn't had many villains that are all that interesting. A step above the others in recent years, but that isn't saying much.

Marvel's villains aren't meant to be interesting. That's why it always cracks me up a little bit when people talk about the dream of having the FF villains fight the Avengers, it's like... you want Dr. Doom to be ultronned? Eccch.

 

[NotNickFury]

If they aren't meant to be interesting, then that must just apply to the films because, going back to Netflix, the likes of Fisk, Kilgrave, even an anti-hero like Frank Castle have been given dimension. Though I'm aware it's not fair to compare the two since there's more time to develop the characters in a series versus the two or so hours you get in a film.

Though I also don't see the FF villains being used as main threats. Loki I could see being a worldly threat, but it'd be like if Norman Osborn conjured up something big enough that needed all of the MCU's roster and not just Spider-Man. I don't see it. What works in the comics definitely doesn't translate to the films.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Again, I've yet to hear the common complaint be that the MCU's villains are bad. Generally speaking, they aren't poorly done (though I do hear the occasional complaint about Ultron). The problem I hear is that they aren't memorable, which is at least valid. They can't all be Loki and they certainly can't be the likes of Fisk, Kilgrave, or Cottonmouth, or even the villains used in the Nolan films, but the issue I see with the MCU's villains is that they don't leave an impression. Them being better than the competition isn't saying much when Malkeith or Yellowjacket aren't any more cookie cutter or by the numbers than Apocalypse.

Keep in mind though that Ultron, Yellowjacket, and especially Malekith are bottom tier Marvel villains. Most of their villains are better than that. They have their fair share of good villains like Loki, Stane, Pierce, and Zemo.

 

[Dark Raven]

Other non comic book films manage to make their villains interesting and formidable while still being able to develop their heroes. Why can't the MCU do that too?

 

[DrCosmic]

^They don't want to.

You may be right Kahran, but putting Ultron and 'bottom tier' in the same sentence removes my objectivity, at least temporarily.

And yes, NNF, Netflix villains are meant to be interesting.