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

[Willie Lumpkin]

 

[Web-Head]

I'm almost certain they can, and didn't they give us a glimpse in Captain America?

Yep. They showed his suit.

 

[Orba]

He certainly shouldn't be part of the Fantastic Four rights, he predates them by quite a bit and has no links to them, his links are to characters like Captain America. About the only way I could see him being in the Fantastic Four rights would be if at the time the rights were made they specifically had something in the contract for Marvel to agree not to use the character due to possible confusion. But then that sort of thing takes forethought, and was The Torch really high enough status for Fox to have thought to do something about possible confusion. Of course if Marvel were to use the character they could just call him Jim Hammond rather than using the code name.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

He certainly shouldn't be part of the Fantastic Four rights, he predates them by quite a bit and has no links to them, his links are to characters like Captain America. About the only way I could see him being in the Fantastic Four rights would be if at the time the rights were made they specifically had something in the contract for Marvel to agree not to use the character due to possible confusion. But then that sort of thing takes forethought, and was The Torch really high enough status for Fox to have thought to do something about possible confusion. Of course if Marvel were to use the character they could just call him Jim Hammond rather than using the code name.

I wouldn't be surprised if Fox has the rights to the name "Human Torch" while Marvel has the rights to the character. That might be why they had the label "Synthetic Man" in the Cap movie.

And if, as we all hope, Marvel will be getting the FF rights back, they may want to avoid using the Hammond character so as not to cause confusion with Johnny Storm when he shows up.t:

But it would be really cool at some point to have film set in the '40s with Namor, Human Torch, Captain America etc. - though that possibility was screwed up with how they handled Cap. I wish they would have implied more time passage before he got frozen so they could have gone back and set some other stories in the '40s.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Does anybody remember, in FF Rise of The Silver Surfer that when Doom gets blasted by the surfer in to some sort of ice cave, some people claimed they could see Captain America frozen in there?

I did an image search to see if I could find it, but I couldn't. That would have been before Marvel Studios existed and even though Fox didn't have the Captain America rights, they may have done it as an inside joke and maybe something to set up a Cap movie if they wanted to get the rights at some point.

I'm just thinking back to that now and wondering if they really did put that in there or people just had over-active imaginations.

 

[TheVileOne]

Marvel Studios did exist at that point, it just wasn't where it is now.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Marvel Studios did exist at that point, it just wasn't where it is now.

Right, I was thinking of when Disney bought them in 2009.

But if Disney hadn't bought them, I suspect the landscape would be very different.

 

[ADollarADay]

And just as we are talking about it, Sony is considering selling its TV and Film unit.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/19/sony-is-weighing-a-sale-of-film-tv-business/

 

[Chris B]

And just as we are talking about it, Sony is considering selling its TV and Film unit.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/19/sony-is-weighing-a-sale-of-film-tv-business/

It still amazes me to think that Marvel was able to get access via the sharing arrangement, and possibly full control if Sony does sell off its film division, of a character with a proven track record film wise like Spider-Man before they get a damaged property like the FF back. Only as recently as three years ago, I would've thought the opposite.

 

[Orba]

It still amazes me to think that Marvel was able to get access via the sharing arrangement, and possibly full control if Sony does sell off its film division, of a character with a proven track record film wise like Spider-Man before they get a damaged property like the FF back. Only as recently as three years ago, I would've thought the opposite.

I don't know, Sony have been selling off their assets for a few years in an attempt to get their finances under control so there was always a chance of something happening there.

 

[Chris B]

I don't know, Sony have been selling off their assets for a few years in an attempt to get their finances under control so there was always a chance of something happening there.

True. At an earlier point, I figured that Fox would be more willing to part ways with the FF rights due to the myriad of issues there, while Sony would be able to hang on long enough to keep Spider-Man away from Marvel for at least the foreseeable future. I was wrong in that assessment of course.

 

[InCali]

And just as we are talking about it, Sony is considering selling its TV and Film unit.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/19/sony-is-weighing-a-sale-of-film-tv-business/

Well, I'm not going to see a movie about a poop emoji (poor little thing), so if they're banking on that, good luck.

So the idea is that if Sony sells off the part of their business that has SM rights that they will revert back to Marvel?? That's a guess? Why do people think that? It seems to me that, if true, Marvel could give Sony a better deal for a purchase of this nature than anyone else could because they'd get a valuable part no matter what. Not having SM would drive the price down for anyone else.

Am I understanding this correctly???

 

[TheVileOne]

If Sony sold off their film deals and assets, that means Spider-Man would likely go with it.

I highly doubt there's a clause in the film license that says "sale of Sony film unit makes agreement null and void." The buyer of the film assets acquires the existing deals and assets. That would more than likely include Spider-Man.

The article also makes no mention of Spider-Man. Also, let's be fair. It is the New York Post. Isn't this publication a borderline tabloid?

 

[InCali]

If Sony sold off their film deals and assets, that means Spider-Man would likely go with it.

I highly doubt there's a clause in the film license that says "sale of Sony film unit makes agreement null and void." The buyer of the film assets acquires the existing deals and assets. That would more than likely include Spider-Man.

The article also makes no mention of Spider-Man. Also, let's be fair. It is the New York Post. Isn't this publication a borderline tabloid?

That sounds right to me, but I know as much about this stuff as a flea on a dog's butt.

Mouse could prolly afford to buy......

 

[TheVileOne]

Yeah but hypothetically, if the film unit is sold, whoever acquires might want to keep a tight rein on those film rights. I mean maybe there will be an opening for a sale or rights transaction, but we really don't know yet.

All we know is that there are rumors that Sony might be looking to tell its film and TV division which has been hemorrhaging cash for a while.

 

[Zarex]

While the Spidey rights likely will move along with its new corporate owner, there's no guarantee that the Marvel Studios arrangement would travel with it. Wanda, CBS, Verizon or whomever may be faced with rebooting the franchise a fourth time. A billion bucks or so from The Mouse would look pretty good in comparison.

I'm surprised Sony Music is apparently off the table - they could lose the Beatle rights in a few years. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney-Sony form a joint partner ownership in place of Sony selling off its entertainment assets in total.

 

[TheVileOne]

Unless Spider-Man Homecoming bombs, why would the new rights holder hypothetically not want to maintain the current relationship with Marvel?

 

[ADollarADay]

While the Spidey rights likely will move along with its new corporate owner, there's no guarantee that the Marvel Studios arrangement would travel with it. Wanda, CBS, Verizon or whomever may be faced with rebooting the franchise a fourth time. A billion bucks or so from The Mouse would look pretty good in comparison.

I'm surprised Sony Music is apparently off the table - they could lose the Beatle rights in a few years. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney-Sony form a joint partner ownership in place of Sony selling off its entertainment assets in total.

That's what I'm hoping for. A current sale opens up the opportunity for sales of assets as well. $1B upfront or through backpayments (which I hope is what the current deal is) to transfer full spiderman rights back to Marvel.

 

[Zarex]

Unless Spider-Man Homecoming bombs, why would the new rights holder hypothetically not want to maintain the current relationship with Marvel?

They may, if Disney/Marvel wanted to do so. But the new entity wouldn't have the same attachment to Spidey, who was Sony's flagship character for much of the prior decade. Sony Pictures is a big gulp and debt relief may be a priority for the acquirer. And a prior Post article mentioned that Sony's TV business was much more attractive to potential buyers than its film business.

 

[TheVileOne]

That doesn't automatically equate to a new film reboot. Also, the Spider-Man property is way more valuable than a billion dollars.

 

[Zarex]

That doesn't automatically equate to a new film reboot. Also, the Spider-Man property is way more valuable than a billion dollars.

If Marvel Studios moves on, and Spidey loses his MCU ties, it kinda does. And while Spidey himself is probably worth about a billion, Marvel has majority ownership with TV, merchandise & publishing. Unless Spidey can return to the profitability of the Raimi days, $1 billion is a generous offer. It's might take 20 years or more for Sony or its successor to bring in $1 billion in profits from the film rights alone.

 

[TheVileOne]

If Marvel Studios moves on, and Spidey loses his MCU ties, it kinda does. And while Spidey himself is probably worth about a billion, Marvel has majority ownership with TV, merchandise & publishing. Unless Spidey can return to the profitability of the Raimi days, $1 billion is a generous offer. It's might take 20 years or more for Sony or its successor to bring in $1 billion in profits from the film rights alone.

I highly doubt Marvel would move on and cut ties with Spider-Man after just getting the character back for its film universe.

This is all just hypothetical conjecture anyway. Sony hasn't even sold its film division yet.

 

[wobbly]

Unless Spider-Man Homecoming bombs, why would the new rights holder hypothetically not want to maintain the current relationship with Marvel?

In theory they'd be more than happy with the current arrangement: Marvel makes the films for them and they get the MCU connection too. Why cause grief for a sweet deal?

This is assuming that Sony selling Columbia doesn't impeach any of the t&c's of the existing Spider-Man contract, which has presumably been amended to allow for the co-operation. There could be a clause covering ownership for all we know, that requires Marvel, as the actual owner of the IP, to agree to any transfer of film ownership should one happen. This would be a justifiable means of preventing the rights control of their properties from falling into the hands of someone they want nothing to do with.

I would think Fox and Universal are 2 that Disney would want to avoid for example.

There could even be a buyout clause should Sony sell, making Spider-Man a separate package that Disney gets first dibs on (which they'd obviously take).

All hypothetical of course. None of us can know anything for sure.

 

[ADollarADay]

That doesn't automatically equate to a new film reboot. Also, the Spider-Man property is way more valuable than a billion dollars.

Spiderman property? For sure. Spiderman movie rights? I'm not convinced it's "way" more valuable than $1B today.

 

[TheVileOne]

In theory they'd be more than happy with the current arrangement: Marvel makes the films for them and they get the MCU connection too. Why cause grief for a sweet deal?

This is assuming that Sony selling Columbia doesn't impeach any of the t&c's of the existing Spider-Man contract, which has presumably been amended to allow for the co-operation. There could be a clause covering ownership for all we know, that requires Marvel, as the actual owner of the IP, to agree to any transfer of film ownership should one happen. This would be a justifiable means of preventing the rights control of their properties from falling into the hands of someone they want nothing to do with.

I would think Fox and Universal are 2 that Disney would want to avoid for example.

There could even be a buyout clause should Sony sell, making Spider-Man a separate package that Disney gets first dibs on (which they'd obviously take).

All hypothetical of course. None of us can know anything for sure.

Good points. But ultimately, I will worry about this bridge more when we come to it. I think ultimately Homecoming still happens, and Spider-Man will be in Infinity War and whatever the next Avengers movie is after that.