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

[wobbly]

I find this statement very interesting.

My assumption up until this point was that Marvel would have full merchandising rights on the characters as they appear in Marvel comics and limited merchandising rights for the actual film characters (so if they wanted to do, for example, a Wolverine action figure that looked like Hugh Jackman, they would have to pay Fox some percentage and likely get Fox's permission but if they wanted to do a Wolverine action figure that looked like the comic-book character, they could do that entirely on their own).

The above wording (and maybe I'm reading too much into it) makes me wonder if Marvel can make whatever they want, but they have to give Fox a cut on characters licensed to Fox (possibly even with comic-designs as well as designs that are closer to the films).

It would be very interesting to know what those merchandising agreements include if anybody has any additional information.

I have always sort of assumed that Fox insisted on unique costumes partly to prevent Marvel from being able to sell comic-based toys that look similar to the movie characters. But based on this wording, I'm wondering if no matter what version of Reed Richards Marvel sells, they have to give a cut to Fox. (that sort of simple arrangement would be much easier to enforce than what I was imagining).

And while the statement says Marvel keeps "more than 50%", I'm guessing it's close to 50% or they would have said "more than 60%" or "more than 70%".

If Marvel is paying anything close to 50%, the lack of Fox merchandise might be far less about friction between the two studios and much more about simple math. Why waste time with Fox characters when they have plenty of Marvel characters to sell and they keep everything on those?

It could also explain the Secret Wars design. If they left the Fox characters on the shirt, they might have to give Fox a big cut. It sort of makes sense to cut them out in that case.

The 'Under these licences' part is key I think. That would suggest that the royalties they cite are for merch based on the movies Fox make, rather than anything from the comics.

The licensing details in full are here (only goes up to 2009 as Disney took over then):
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Marvel_Enterprises_(MVL)/Licensing

They have statements covering non movie merchandising, licensing strategies, etc.

If Marvel agreed to giving Fox a cut from comic based merch then they got even more hosed than we ever thought!! But I do not think they could have been that stupid.

They made a bad enough deal as it was, let alone handing free royalties to Fox. If they did then Fox would have been making money from Marvel merch since 1993. 7 years before finally putting the X-men in theatres in 2000. Likewise with the FF, who they took even longer to put on screen.

Also, they do/will still licence toys and stuff for X-Men, even if you don't see much about:

http://marveltoynews.com/sdcc-marvel-legends-2017-x-men-colossus-polaris-warlock/

These are licences with Hasbro, and being based on the comics, should not be tied to Fox so I doubt they see a dime from them.

The reason I think we saw the artwork amendments and the FF characters being pulled from new art production is that marvel (under Ike's dominion) simply didn't want to give any promotion for Fox's movies in any way.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

A lot if interesting information there. I just skimmed through it, but I'll have to take some time to read it in more detail later.

I'm a little afraid, based on my skimming, that it doesn't really get into details, so it may not tell us much.

If Marvel agreed to giving Fox a cut from comic based merch then they got even more hosed than we ever thought!! But I do not think they could have been that stupid.

But if I were a studio, I'd argue: "90% of merchandise sales will be driven by the films."

Even something like this:

Which has no direct connection to any film is going to be much more popular and sell much better if Spider-Man films are popular.

 

[wobbly]

But if I were a studio, I'd argue: "90% of merchandise sales will be driven by the films."

Even something like this:

Which has no direct connection to any film is going to be much more popular and sell much better if Spider-Man films are popular.

Thing is Fox already got a sweet deal. They get a healthy cut from movie merch, which Marvel was willing to produce for them until Disney took over. They paid peanuts to Marvel from the films revenue, and they keep the property for as long as they are willing to make the films.

And I think the guys at Marvel for the 1993 deal were well aware of the value of merchandising (about the only thing they did know...all those gimmick collector covers, trading cards etc...). I just can't see them agreeing to Fox having a cut from all merch, no matter the theoretical boost a movie might offer. And like I said, that would mean Fox would be seeing a healthy cut from merch even if they never made a film and just let the rights elapse (7-8 years worth of free cash for doing nothing).

That Spider bike is an example of why I think Marvel would never have agreed to that, and why they totally played Sony when renegotiating the Spider-Man deal so they got all the movie merchandising profits.

 

[InCali]

You folks crack me up. We should ask the mods to throw in "speculation" in the title of this thread somewhere....

 

[Endeavor]

You folks crack me up. We should ask the mods to throw in "speculation" in the title of this thread somewhere....

Then you'd have to put it in every thread in all forums, because speculation runs rampant everywhere.

 

[Dasher10]

We just got a bunch of Deadpool merch and a Bishop action figure this year with Cyclops and Dazzler figures coming next year. I feel like the merch freeze has been over for a while and some video games like MvC4 are being hit because they were already in production for years.

 

[InCali]

Then you'd have to put it in every thread in all forums, because speculation runs rampant everywhere.

Except the box office prediction threads. t:

 

[ADollarADay]

Whoever signed off on the X-Men deal is playing it very close to the vest. We don't know what Marvel received for compensation. We also don't know what FOX received.

Is the deal for one, two, three or a half-dozen programs? Or did Marvel grant unlimited live action TV rights? What is Marvel's ownership interest, if any, in these shows? Is the deal "in perpetuity" like the movies, or does it terminate on a date certain? Are there restrictions on air times, content, characters and so forth? None of this was reported.

The reason I am "keeping hope alive" that the FF were involved in the transaction is that precious little has actually been disclosed. Marvel and FOX have done an excellent job keeping this deal under wraps.

The rumor is for 2 TV shows. We don't know how many seasons they can go for. I feel very confident Marvel wouldn't sign perpetuity deals anymore (like the Universal theme park rights or all these movie rights we keep talking about which are, for all intents and purposes, in perpetuity). Just look at the netflix deals.

I don't think we'll ever get those answers, akin to the 2015 Spiderman deal, there are a lot of questions that will never be publicly known.

Disney (or more specifically Gunn) who had more reason to crow over that one, didn't say anything until after the cat was out of the bag,

Disney generally makes very favorable deals to itself (sans 2015 spiderman deal). The Ego/Negasonic trade is worthy of a brag. They got full rights back to a relatively important character who - according to Gunn - will play a big role in a possible $1B movie for allowing the competitor to change the powers to a character they already owned the movie rights to.

The deal may also have extended the turn around period between FOX releases from five to seven years.

What makes you think it change from 5 to 7 years?

The 'Under these licences' part is key I think. That would suggest that the royalties they cite are for merch based on the movies Fox make, rather than anything from the comics.

The licensing details in full are here (only goes up to 2009 as Disney took over then):
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Marvel_Enterprises_(MVL)/Licensing

They have statements covering non movie merchandising, licensing strategies, etc.

If Marvel agreed to giving Fox a cut from comic based merch then they got even more hosed than we ever thought!! But I do not think they could have been that stupid.

They made a bad enough deal as it was, let alone handing free royalties to Fox. If they did then Fox would have been making money from Marvel merch since 1993. 7 years before finally putting the X-men in theatres in 2000. Likewise with the FF, who they took even longer to put on screen.

Also, they do/will still licence toys and stuff for X-Men, even if you don't see much about:

http://marveltoynews.com/sdcc-marvel-legends-2017-x-men-colossus-polaris-warlock/

These are licences with Hasbro, and being based on the comics, should not be tied to Fox so I doubt they see a dime from them.

The reason I think we saw the artwork amendments and the FF characters being pulled from new art production is that marvel (under Ike's dominion) simply didn't want to give any promotion for Fox's movies in any way.

It is very possible that Marvel agreed to give them 50% of the merch right or whatever. Sony had at one point 50% merch right to ALL spiderman merchandise. Marvel sued them for 25% and then Disney bought out the remaining 25% in 2011.

This is the same Marvel that - at that time - gave perpetuity theme park rights to Universal (which could have been world wide rights, but Universal chose not to pursue it at that time) and possibly doesn't see a dime in royalties from XMen movies.

 

[First Avenger]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BNyRbo3g_DU/

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BNyRbo3g_DU/

 

[wobbly]

Disney generally makes very favorable deals to itself (sans 2015 spiderman deal). The Ego/Negasonic trade is worthy of a brag. They got full rights back to a relatively important character who - according to Gunn - will play a big role in a possible $1B movie for allowing the competitor to change the powers to a character they already owned the movie rights to.

Yup. Disney landed a great trade there, and no-one would have known about it if Deadpool's co-screenwriter had kept his mouth shut (I'd just assumed Marvel had Ego all along). I figure he probably did get an earful from the higher ups at Fox for that slip.

It is very possible that Marvel agreed to give them 50% of the merch right or whatever. Sony had at one point 50% merch right to ALL spiderman merchandise. Marvel sued them for 25% and then Disney bought out the remaining 25% in 2011.

This is the same Marvel that - at that time - gave perpetuity theme park rights to Universal (which could have been world wide rights, but Universal chose not to pursue it at that time) and possibly doesn't see a dime in royalties from XMen movies.

I know Disney bought out all the Spider-Man movie merch rights, but are you sure about Sony getting a 50% cut from all merch?

I remember reading this one a while back about Marvel suing Sony and settling over the merchandising, and the settlement makes it clear it was all about Movie based merch:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108611135692925914

"Comic-book company Marvel Enterprises Inc. settled its lawsuit with a division of Sony Corp. over the companies' joint venture to market merchandise linked to the "Spider-Man 2" movie.

Through the joint venture, called Spider-Man Merchandising L.P., Marvel and Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. license merchandising rights related to Spider-Man motion pictures."

​

If there was anything more to do with Sony having a cut from all Spider-Man merch I can't say I've ever seen that (so I stand to be corrected).

And afaik the Sony/Columbia movie deal was sealed 1999? The movie rights had been all over the place (since 1985) before that.

 

[Zarex]

What makes you think it change from 5 to 7 years?

It appears as though all the FOX deals (DD, FF, DP) either have or had a 7 year grace period between the release of the prior picture and the commencement of production on the next. Spidey, however, appears to be on a 5 (or maybe even 4) year plan, which is the time that past between SM3 and ASM.

While it could be that Marvel really wants to limit offscreen time for their #1 character, I suspect that FOX obtained their additional leeway as part of the Mutant X settlement. Nothing was disclosed, however, so this one is pure speculation.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Yup. Disney landed a great trade there, and no-one would have known about it if Deadpool's co-screenwriter had kept his mouth shut (I'd just assumed Marvel had Ego all along). I figure he probably did get an earful from the higher ups at Fox for that slip.


I know Disney bought out all the Spider-Man movie merch rights, but are you sure about Sony getting a 50% cut from all merch?

I remember reading this one a while back about Marvel suing Sony and settling over the merchandising, and the settlement makes it clear it was all about Movie based merch:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108611135692925914

"Comic-book company Marvel Enterprises Inc. settled its lawsuit with a division of Sony Corp. over the companies' joint venture to market merchandise linked to the "Spider-Man 2" movie.

Through the joint venture, called Spider-Man Merchandising L.P., Marvel and Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. license merchandising rights related to Spider-Man motion pictures."

​

If there was anything more to do with Sony having a cut from all Spider-Man merch I can't say I've ever seen that (so I stand to be corrected).

And afaik the Sony/Columbia movie deal was sealed 1999? The movie rights had been all over the place (since 1985) before that.

Just talking out of my butt here without knowing any details, but was the lawsuit possibly related to the ambiguity regarding what constituted film and what constituted comic merchandise? That's part of the problem of not including all merchandise.

If you've got a spider-man action figure that is wearing a comic costume (that looks very similar to a film costume) which is it?

That's part of the reason that if I were a studio I'd be very uncomfortable with a deal that allowed split rights (along with what I mentioned earlier regarding the film driving demand for all merchandise).

 

[Zarex]

I think ADAY is right here, that the Spidey deal included all character merchandise. From the 3/2/1999 LA Times:

Sony and Marvel Enterprises also said they would establish a 50-50 joint venture to license Spider-Man-related merchandise, including toys, games and apparel, that could generate billions of dollars in revenues.

Marvel filed a lawsuit a few years later, alleging that Sony committing fraud in relation to the agreement. I believe one bone of contention was advertising for the Playstation 2. Spidey featured heavily in the advertisement of the game system and Marvel was not compensated.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108611135692925914

Sony alleged that Marvel was trying to circumvent the original agreement due to dissatisfaction with the original Avi Arad negotiated deal. From the 6/18/2007 NY Times:

But Marvel makes relatively little money from these box-office bonanzas, because of unfavorable deals struck in the 1990s. A Lehman Brothers analysis calculated that Marvel made just $62 million from the first two “Spider-Man” films.


The two sides settled with Marvel ending up with 75% of the Spider-man Joint Venture. Disney bought out Sony's stake in 2011 for their cut of the BO receipts along with a big chunk of cash. From the 11/3/2011 LA Times:

Sony Pictures was the sole division to report a gain, with profits of $228 million on $2.2 billion in revenue, a boost primarily driven by a one-time sale of its Spider-Man merchandising rights to Walt Disney Co.'s Marvel Entertainment for $278 million

 

[ADollarADay]

It appears as though all the FOX deals (DD, FF, DP) either have or had a 7 year grace period between the release of the prior picture and the commencement of production on the next. Spidey, however, appears to be on a 5 (or maybe even 4) year plan, which is the time that past between SM3 and ASM.

While it could be that Marvel really wants to limit offscreen time for their #1 character, I suspect that FOX obtained their additional leeway as part of the Mutant X settlement. Nothing was disclosed, however, so this one is pure speculation.

It's been awhile since I read it, but the leaked documents showed that in 2011 when the merch deal was being made, Sony was asking for an extension for the movies. IIRC it said that 9 months post release, Sony had to pay a fee for the movie's extension rights and then it was 3 years 9 months from the previous release to start principal photography and 5 years 9 months to release the movie. They also wanted a whooping 8 years to start principal photography and 10 years to release a new film after a trilogy was completed.

I think ADAY is right here, that the Spidey deal included all character merchandise. From the 3/2/1999 LA Times:

Sony and Marvel Enterprises also said they would establish a 50-50 joint venture to license Spider-Man-related merchandise, including toys, games and apparel, that could generate billions of dollars in revenues.

Marvel filed a lawsuit a few years later, alleging that Sony committing fraud in relation to the agreement. I believe one bone of contention was advertising for the Playstation 2. Spidey featured heavily in the advertisement of the game system and Marvel was not compensated.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108611135692925914

Sony alleged that Marvel was trying to circumvent the original agreement due to dissatisfaction with the original Avi Arad negotiated deal. From the 6/18/2007 NY Times:

But Marvel makes relatively little money from these box-office bonanzas, because of unfavorable deals struck in the 1990s. A Lehman Brothers analysis calculated that Marvel made just $62 million from the first two “Spider-Man” films.


The two sides settled with Marvel ending up with 75% of the Spider-man Joint Venture. Disney bought out Sony's stake in 2011 for their cut of the BO receipts along with a big chunk of cash. From the 11/3/2011 LA Times:

Sony Pictures was the sole division to report a gain, with profits of $228 million on $2.2 billion in revenue, a boost primarily driven by a one-time sale of its Spider-Man merchandising rights to Walt Disney Co.'s Marvel Entertainment for $278 million

That is correct and the leaked documents are a good read for this as well.

I think Disney had to pay $150MM - 200MM upfront fee plus a backend fee of 3.5% with a limit for every 10 year period (that means Disney pays Sony to release spiderman movies).
I have the PDFs/DOCs saved somewhere and they are also on wikileaks. Very interesting stuff and worth a read.

 

[wobbly]

Urghh...The more I read the more confusing it all gets...

I found this at wikileaks (you need Powerpoint to view it):

https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/07/...der-Man Merchandising Business Update v32.ppt

Only skimmed though it tbh, but Sony have estimated Marvels total merchandising, the Spider-man cut of that, and their own estimates for each movie, ahead of prepping for negotiations post Disney buyout of Marvel. They even state in the 'negotiating dynamics' as a potential premium what was to come in part: Selling off their stake in the merch.

When I get the time I'll try to read through it all properly and see if I can figure it all out, though I have noticed the 'Total Classic' gray columns providing revenue in their tables (referred to in the notes as 'historical classic').

 

[Endeavor]

https://www.instagram.com/p/bnyrbo3g_du/

lmao

 

[ADollarADay]

Urghh...The more I read the more confusing it all gets...

I found this at wikileaks (you need Powerpoint to view it):

https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/07/...der-Man Merchandising Business Update v32.ppt

Only skimmed though it tbh, but Sony have estimated Marvels total merchandising, the Spider-man cut of that, and their own estimates for each movie, ahead of prepping for negotiations post Disney buyout of Marvel. They even state in the 'negotiating dynamics' as a potential premium what was to come in part: Selling off their stake in the merch.

When I get the time I'll try to read through it all properly and see if I can figure it all out, though I have noticed the 'Total Classic' gray columns providing revenue in their tables (referred to in the notes as 'historical classic').

https://search.wikileaks.org/?query...t=&released_date_end=&new_search=True#results

Enjoy. It doesn't really give you any answers, but it does provide a fair insight on things.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

This may be a hypothetical so unrealistic it's not even worth asking - or worse, it may be like pulling the pin out of a hand-grenade and walking away t:, but I'm bored, so here goes:

What if Fox completely changed their stripes and started making amazing films? What if the next 4 or 5 X-Films were better than the best marvel films (in terms of overall quality and faithfulness to the comics)? Would you give them another chance?

I think the chances of that happening are so slim it's probably not even worth asking, but if they actually started making great films and showed a real understanding of the characters (and demonstrated an understanding of what FF really should be) I might just give them another chance.

But what about you? Are there any circumstances in which you could imagine giving them another chance, or have they screwed things up so badly you'd never even consider it?

 

[GoblinScrier]

This may be a hypothetical so unrealistic it's not even worth asking - or worse, it may be like pulling the pin out of a hand-grenade and walking away t:, but I'm bored, so here goes:

What if Fox completely changed their stripes and started making amazing films? What if the next 4 or 5 X-Films were better than the best marvel films (in terms of overall quality and faithfulness to the comics)? Would you give them another chance?

I think the chances of that happening are so slim it's probably not even worth asking, but if they actually started making great films and showed a real understanding of the characters (and demonstrated an understanding of what FF really should be) I might just give them another chance.

But what about you? Are there any circumstances in which you could imagine giving them another chance, or have they screwed things up so badly you'd never even consider it?

I feel like they shot themselves in the foot repeatedly with so many subpar films...Apocalypse was ok and it shouldn't have been OK...it should have been amazing, rivaling or even surpassing Civil War...it didn't....the FF reboot from 2015, after viewing it, wanted to plunge forks deep in my eyes, that was the definition of celluloid garbage...with the FF, they have no more chances left, contract or not, they simply need to leave it alone, let Marvel have it, sell it, make a deal, whatever, get it away from them...Deadpool was a fluke, a brilliant fluke, but a fluke...how that came from the same company that produced so much crap, is beyond me...

 

[Dark Raven]

This may be a hypothetical so unrealistic it's not even worth asking - or worse, it may be like pulling the pin out of a hand-grenade and walking away t:, but I'm bored, so here goes:

What if Fox completely changed their stripes and started making amazing films? What if the next 4 or 5 X-Films were better than the best marvel films (in terms of overall quality and faithfulness to the comics)? Would you give them another chance?

I think the chances of that happening are so slim it's probably not even worth asking, but if they actually started making great films and showed a real understanding of the characters (and demonstrated an understanding of what FF really should be) I might just give them another chance.

But what about you? Are there any circumstances in which you could imagine giving them another chance, or have they screwed things up so badly you'd never even consider it?

Fox have already made their 4 or 5 amazing movies. It's just a matter of the audience appreciating them and seeing their true worth. Fant4stic needs to be recognised for the masterpiece it truly is.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I feel like they shot themselves in the foot repeatedly with so many subpar films...Apocalypse was ok and it shouldn't have been OK...it should have been amazing, rivaling or even surpassing Civil War...it didn't....the FF reboot from 2015, after viewing it, wanted to plunge forks deep in my eyes, that was the definition of celluloid garbage...with the FF, they have no more chances left, contract or not, they simply need to leave it alone, let Marvel have it, sell it, make a deal, whatever, get it away from them...Deadpool was a fluke, a brilliant fluke, but a fluke...how that came from the same company that produced so much crap, is beyond me...

It was actually Deadpool that got me thinking "What if they've changed?", but you're right. After Deadpool, they had a stinker with Apocalypse, and while some have expressed interest in Logan, it looks awful to me. So even if they were going to go on a 4 - 5 film run, it would probably have to start after Logan, and by then it would likely be too little, too late and the FF rights will be expiring before they could possibly prove themselves under the most unlikely of situations.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Fox have already made their 4 or 5 amazing movies. It's just a matter of the audience appreciating them and seeing their true worth. Fant4stic needs to be recognised for the masterpiece it truly is.

This is one thing that baffles me. There are people who defend crap from Fox.

Why? What good is it doing to call bad films good? That just encourages them to continue to make bad films.

 

[wobbly]

I feel like they shot themselves in the foot repeatedly with so many subpar films...Apocalypse was ok and it shouldn't have been OK...it should have been amazing, rivaling or even surpassing Civil War...it didn't....the FF reboot from 2015, after viewing it, wanted to plunge forks deep in my eyes, that was the definition of celluloid garbage...with the FF, they have no more chances left, contract or not, they simply need to leave it alone, let Marvel have it, sell it, make a deal, whatever, get it away from them...Deadpool was a fluke, a brilliant fluke, but a fluke...how that came from the same company that produced so much crap, is beyond me...

It was good in movie in spite of Fox, not because of them. They threw a low budget at it and pretty much left Miller, Reynolds & co to get on with it with bugger all interference.

Will be interesting to see if Deadpool 2 fares as well: Now that the suits at Fox know DP is good bank (no doubt to their pleasant surprise), will they stay out of it and leave the creative team to do want they want? (best option by far)

Or will they feel compelled to stick their noses in and ###k things up (Hi Simon...)

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

What if Fox completely changed their stripes and started making amazing films? What if the next 4 or 5 X-Films were better than the best marvel films (in terms of overall quality and faithfulness to the comics)? Would you give them another chance?

nope. I walked away from FOX after X3 and X:W. after that, they had their second chances already. They made a good, although pretty misogynistic movie called First Class and I hoped it would be the turning point for them. It wasn't. They followed it with that dreadful Wolverine film and DOFP which was a slap in the face for fans. (and F4nt4st1c which might have been one of the worst major studio productions outside of Michael Bay's realm of the last decade)

I even gave them a third chance since Deadpool was a brave little movie, but Apocalypse was an even bigger slap in the face than DOFP. (and after two botched attempts to make a decent Wolverine movie, I'm not sure why I should be interested in watching the fail a third time with Logan)

I'm done with them. They could produce the Citizen Kane of CBM and I wouldn't care. Over the last ten years (or so) the showed us that they are almost as incompetent at making CBM as Zach Snyder is and everything that points in a positive direction happens either because of pure luck or because someone fought hard and long with them to get a decent movie made.