Why I want everything to revert

[DrCosmic]

I think you're overstating the MCU's risk. GotG has Rocket as a supporting character nothing more. That's no more risky than having Ewoks in Star Wars or Gollum in Lord of the Rings. Meanwhile, Fox actually made a film with a female lead, something the MCU still thinks is too risky for them. And the only film they did that defied any predictions was Avengers, which was always anticipated to be a success, just not so big of one. So no one who actually analyzes this stuff thought it was a big risk.

And X-Men, in addition to using a darker palette (costumes, and cinematography) and touching on darker themes (racism, genocide), does actually kill people off more often, and not just TV characters and people with less than 10 minutes screen time like Marvel does. [blackout](Jean Grey, Cyclops, Professor X and other heroes say hi right back to the dead supporting cast members from the MCU)[/blackout] In fact, the fact that 20 hours of AoS can only boast one named character death is testament to how light the MCU is. Still a ton of fun, and it's actually more fun than X-Men because it's not as dark.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

In simple terms, in a worst case scenario, what Fox and Sony are doing right now could be detrimental to everything Marvel Studios has built and to the CBM genre itself. It's one thing to buckle down on a franchise a commit to releasing movies every couple years, it's another to try and stretch it completely thin while putting out mediocre products and having it effect movies MS and WB put out.

Sorry but if there's a studio that will burn out the genre it'll be Marvel Studios

They are releasing more movies than any other, two a year at this point. Plus the most TV shows too. That's more movies in just 6 years than Sonys entire Spider-Man catalogue in half the time.

Spider-Man has had 5 movie appearances over 12 years. Cap will have 6 over 6 years by 2016 that's not a single year where he hasn't been on screen.

Marvel Studios is the one doing the most and would therefore be the one to over saturate audiences rather than studios doing less.

Sony is trying to force villain movies out of the Spider-Man franchise, that FF reboot looks like a disaster waiting to happen, and now Fox is talking about putting out X-Men related TV shows. It's too much. I used to say that CMB/superhero fatigue was a myth, and I still believe that, but at a certain point, when there's 20 superhero shows on television and 15 superhero movies coming out a year, people will start lumping them all together. And out of those 30+ projects, there is no way that all of them will actually be good, and a couple bad missteps could hurt the entire genre.

Sony is doing what Marvel is doing though much less in amount. Fox is upping their X-Men movies but it's barely one a year at this point which is perfectly fine, and if they do TV shows it still won't be as many as marvel is pumping out.

Just look at TASM2. It's looking to be yet another lukewarmly received Spider-Man movie

It's not the only one to "drag things down". All are applicable including the lukewarm recieved Marvel studios movies.

This kind of performance just gives naysayers more ammo to claim that SH films are repetitive and generic and prematurely write off other films of its kind in the future. That kind of stuff DOES eventually bleed into the mainstream, and with what Fox and Sony are trying to do right now, I really see it happening soon.

Except they aren't the only ones doing this, Marvel studios does too.

With all due respect it seems You're trying to blame Sony and Fox for the future destruction of the genre whereas the actual order of studios 'doing too much' that will possibly wear out the genre out and burst the bubble is Marvel studios, Sony, Fox then WB.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I'm not feeling it. More diversity in the market is a good thing. I'd hate to have the six franchises coming out of Marvel Studios to be: X-Men, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Avengers, Iron Man and Guardians of the Galaxy. No Captain America franchise? Thor? Dr. Strange. Boo to that.

Agreed

For everyone else here and for the whole other bunch of threads out there, like I've said before...

Do we really need so many threads about the topic of rights.

There's already a thread about the bubble bursting in future.

 

[Eddie]

I think you're overstating the MCU's risk. GotG has Rocket as a supporting character nothing more. That's no more risky than having Ewoks in Star Wars or Gollum in Lord of the Rings. Meanwhile, Fox actually made a film with a female lead, something the MCU still thinks is too risky for them. And the only film they did that defied any predictions was Avengers, which was always anticipated to be a success, just not so big of one. So no one who actually analyzes this stuff thought it was a big risk.

And X-Men, in addition to using a darker palette (costumes, and cinematography) and touching on darker themes (racism, genocide), does actually kill people off more often, and not just TV characters and people with less than 10 minutes screen time like Marvel does. [blackout](Jean Grey, Cyclops, Professor X and other heroes say hi right back to the dead supporting cast members from the MCU)[/blackout] In fact, the fact that 20 hours of AoS can only boast one named character death is testament to how light the MCU is. Still a ton of fun, and it's actually more fun than X-Men because it's not as dark.

Marvel hasn't done a full female lead movie yet, but they have done a One-Shot that was better in it's short runtime than the entirety of Elektra. Jessica Jones is getting a show, too. As for Rocket being nothing more than a supporting character in GotG, everyone involved in the production of the movie has been pretty open about how Rocket is fairly important. It's been stated that if Rocket doesn't work the movie won't work. That's quite a bit riding on a CG raccoon, no matter how big his gun is. It's also worth adding that James Gunn has never directed a large budget film, nor has he ever directed a particularly well known film. Also [BLACKOUT]Professor X never died in the X-films. His physical body did, sure, but he transferred his mind to his brain-dead twin's body.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[DrCosmic]

Lol, okay on Professor X.

But Gollum is also very important, as are the Ewoks. If those things didn't work, those movies wouldn't work. But none of them are the stars or the focus. Creature supporting characters simply aren't a risk, they've been done too many times and are too beloved when done even fairly well.

And Agent Carter just proves my point. Marvel has more popular female characters and higher quality stuff and they won't take the risk of making a feature film starring one. They take lesser risks of shorts and TV shows. Fox had none of that and they did go all out. Marvel Studios won't take that risk.

 

[SuperT]

I think it's a little silly saying you want Spider-Man, X-Men and FF back because of over-saturation when there weren't any concerns with over-saturation until Marvel started churning out two movies a year.

Like really, Marvel Studios have been awesome but they're just as much a part of the issue as any other studio. Not to mention, what would stop them from churning out more than two movies (or other options) a year if they were to get these properties back?

Sony & Fox have every right to make the films just as much as Marvel does and shouldn't take all the blame for any possible over-saturation of the market.

 

[DACrowe]

I think you missed my point. Them taking these risks, might be cool for us, but if they're going to end up being bad movies and TV shows it's only going to serve to tire people out quicker on all of this stuff.

Also, this "X-Men is too dark for Marvel" crap is ridiculous. The X-Men from the comics are no darker than any other big Marvel property. Hell Doctor Strange and the Inhumans are "darker" than the X-Men. Don't know where this idea of there being an abnormally high rate of killing in X-Men comics is coming from.

I would say the X-Men are darker than most Avengers characters, in some ways Spidey is as well, though that has changed as of late ever since OMD in the comics has turned Peter Parker into Peter Pan in an era of The Winter Soldier becoming Cap following Civil War.

With that said, I do not see Marvel Studios making something as potentially bleak or narratively ambitious as X-Men: Days of Future Past. Then again that movie might be bad (we don't know). And Marvel certainly would not make something as bland and inept as TASM2.

Still, it is a trade-off either way. And if genre fatigue happens, it is not going to be Spidey movies that do the deed.

 

[KangConquers]

Agreed. It just seems like all the reasons that Marvel Studios wouldn't sideline the current MCU are reasons why they wouldn't bother to reacquire the other properties in the first place. I mean, who would be happy if the properties reverted and Marvel Studios treated Spidey and X-Men like they are Black Panther and Captain Marvel?

I think in some alternate reality, Marvel/ Disney would've been capable of making $1 Billion Spider-Man and X-Men films, and a $650-700 M Wolverine Solo. Unfortunately, we've been flooded with films from those characters since the turn of the century.

I think Spider-Man and X-Men will wind up picked clean, with very little to offer after their 9th or 10th outings. Sony and Fox have to keep making these movies in order retain the rights, which means the general audience will never get the chance to miss the characters. By the time rights do revert, the comic book movie boom will probably be done, much like the Western boom.

I honestly think there would be too many snags even if the rights reverted today; would the general public really want to see Peter Parker's origins for a third time? Would people still pay to see Wolverine played by someone other than Hugh Jackman? These franchises have created ceilings, and strapped both properties with baggage.

I don't think the generation growing up now has nearly the connection to the X-Men that the Gen-Xers did. In 10 years, at the time of a hypothetical Marvel X-Men reboot, there won't be a generation of high schoolers who grew up on a constant diet of X-Men cartoons, action figures, and video games. Their only frame of reference will be the movies, and that's a double edged sword.

On the Spidey front, we will have seen The Osborns (twice), Uncle Ben die (Twice), Peter Parker get bitten by a Spider (twice), Both of Peter's major love interests, most of Spidey's top 10-15 villains. What would be left for Disney, other than to wait 10 years?

 

[DrCosmic]

All so sad but so true. I guess I just think this is better. No we don't have $1B Spidey, but we have $1B Iron Man and 750M Spidey. That's better, imho. More heroes, more diversity, characters graduating to A list. Would Iron Man and the Avengers ever have become A list if Marvel Studios had Spidey, FF and X-Men? No, not really.

You raise so many good points. This series of movies being definitive for the generation, which is sad, not because of the quality, per se, but because they're so limited in scope and fail to capture the essence of the franchise the way the 90s cartoon series, or any series really, did. Similar with Spidey, but not quite as bad.

And ceilings is such a real issue, which comes back to why TIH didn't do so hot, not because it wasn't every bit as good as Iron Man, but the expectation - that it be like Ang Lee's Hulk - was already set. And so you can change little stuff, but in the end, the movies aren't really that different in structure or quality. Different tone, messages, palettes, emphasis, but all in all, if you hated the basic idea of Ang Lee's Hulk, you won't like TIH either. Even if that wasn't true, that's how the audience reacts. Vast improvements in quality for sequels only get minor improvements in box office, because the ceiling, as you say, has already been set.

 

[Chance Jackson]

On the Spidey front, we will have seen The Osborns (twice), Uncle Ben die (Twice), Peter Parker get bitten by a Spider (twice), Both of Peter's major love interests, most of Spidey's top 10-15 villains. What would be left for Disney, other than to wait 10 years?

Miles Morales, Ultimate Jessica Drew and or a modified Ultimate Ben Reilly? Spiderman 2099? Sony could use any of the above on their next reboot and when done with that era of movies bring peter back on the reboot after that.

 

[Dasher10]

Honestly, the only film rights that I can see reverting are Spider-Man if two consecutive films flop. Otherwise, I can see Spider-Man continuing as my favorite villains (Mysterio, Carnage, Shocker, Scorpion and Hobgoblin. I'd also add Spider-Slayer but he's currently just "Alistair Smythe" and is neither paralyzed nor does he have his armor yet) haven't been portrayed yet. I hope that Sony hangs onto the rights just so I can see my favorite baddies on the big screen.

That said, if Sony does get some large Spider-Man flops on their hands, then I wouldn't mind Spider-Man joining the Avengers.

 

[H.U.S.T.L.E.]

I think it's a little silly saying you want Spider-Man, X-Men and FF back because of over-saturation when there weren't any concerns with over-saturation until Marvel started churning out two movies a year.

Like really, Marvel Studios have been awesome but they're just as much a part of the issue as any other studio. Not to mention, what would stop them from churning out more than two movies (or other options) a year if they were to get these properties back?

Sony & Fox have every right to make the films just as much as Marvel does and shouldn't take all the blame for any possible over-saturation of the market.

The thing is, even with Marvel pumping out two movies a year already, it still feels that they've barely scratched the surface of their intellectual properties. Even with what we've already seen, fans are clamoring for even more heroes like Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Inhumans & expansion of the cosmic side like Nova.

To answer your question about what would stop them from producing more if they regained the rights? I think the simple answer is that in Marvel Studios current construction, more than two movies a year would be stretching their braintrust very thin. We've seen how involved Feige is in each of these projects and by adding more films to the slate, the less control a select few have to create a cohesive vision.

Since it's all hypothetical, I think it's very possible that Feige would allow certain creators to have more control over certain properties... I'm guessing Whedon, the Russos & Gunn would have a fair amount of input in an expanded universe that includes X-Men, Spidey & FF. But seeing as how they've run a tight close-knit operation so far and that model has served them well, I'd say that drastically increasing their output wouldn't be a given.

honestly think there would be too many snags even if the rights reverted today; would the general public really want to see Peter Parker's origins for a third time? Would people still pay to see Wolverine played by someone other than Hugh Jackman? These franchises have created ceilings, and strapped both properties with baggage.

On the Spidey front, we will have seen The Osborns (twice), Uncle Ben die (Twice), Peter Parker get bitten by a Spider (twice), Both of Peter's major love interests, most of Spidey's top 10-15 villains. What would be left for Disney, other than to wait 10 years?

I think if the rights ever revert, there's a couple options in play. By the time Spidey's run at Sony is done, he'll be completely woven into the mainstream of pop culture and you won't need to show his origins again. Or if you feel the need to show some of it, it can be done through quick flashbacks. That gives you free reign to tell the best Spider-Man story possible since his universe has already been explored enough that you don't need to go through the origin story again, you just pick up in the thick of Spidey being Spidey.

With the X-Men, you have an opportunity to tell an origin story that integrates them into the MCU. While First Class has already done that, you can do a retelling of it in a way that lines up with the early X-Men comic stories and it would feel different enough (and long enough removed) that I don't think fans would mind all that much.

I think with Marvel already establishing that superheroes exist and that people are gaining powers in different ways, re-establishing Spidey isn't a hard sell in the MCU nor do you need to waste the time on an origin. For X-Men, humans being born with powers will challenge the established status quo of powers gained through science/magic in the MCU. THAT allows you to tell the story of why mutants are feared, since all we've seen previously is that freak science accidents have turned some people into superheroes... but people being born with gifts would change the game in the MCU in my honest opinion.

EDIT: The other thing I failed to consider... by the time either Spidey or X-Men rights revert, it might be much more feasible to do quality CGI on a more limited budget for TV. It'll never be cheap I'm sure, but with the way technology advances it's not out of the realm of possibility. Spider-Man & X-Men live action shows would be another amazing opportunity to do something different with those characters and differentiate it from the film versions we'll have seen countless times by then.

 

[Spooderman]

I don't want the rights to revert for these reasons

1. Disney sucks. They canceled Avengers: EMH and replaced it with a crappy commercial for the MCU. Screw Disney.

2. They would shoehorn Spider-man and Wolverine in every Avengers movie

3. Spider-Man works better as a ground level hero

4. X-Men work better in their own universe

What I do think Disney should do is actually sell more characters to Sony, namely Daredevil, Punisher, and Blade, because they work well with Spider-Man. Sony could create a larger cinematic universe than the lameass S6 movie and get more people to read the comics and buy the toys.

But Disney won't do that because it is run by spiteful bastards who would rather have another firm lose than do something to benefit themselves.

 

[Chance Jackson]

To answer your question about what would stop them from producing more if they regained the rights? I think the simple answer is that in Marvel Studios current construction, more than two movies a year would be stretching their braintrust very thin. We've seen how involved Feige is in each of these projects and by adding more films to the slate, the less control a select few have to create a cohesive vision.

Since it's all hypothetical, I think it's very possible that Feige would allow certain creators to have more control over certain properties... I'm guessing Whedon, the Russos & Gunn would have a fair amount of input in an expanded universe that includes X-Men, Spidey & FF. But seeing as how they've run a tight close-knit operation so far and that model has served them well, I'd say that drastically increasing their output wouldn't be a given.

Do you know how much money Disney payed for Marvel????? If the rights for Spidey and X-Men reverted tomorrow Disney would not hesitate to put Marvel to task to developing those "Proven" blockbuster franchises into Disney owned blockbuster movies and would demand it be done within 2-3 years and if they couldn't expand Marvel Studios enough and fast enough to get the job done they would give the task to another studio under the Disney Umbrella. Disney ain't leavin money on the table

I don't want the rights to revert for these reasons

1. Disney sucks. They canceled Avengers: EMH and replaced it with a crappy commercial for the MCU. Screw Disney.

2. They would shoehorn Spider-man and Wolverine in every Avengers movie

3. Spider-Man works better as a ground level hero

4. X-Men work better in their own universe

What I do think Disney should do is actually sell more characters to Sony, namely Daredevil, Punisher, and Blade, because they work well with Spider-Man. Sony could create a larger cinematic universe than the lameass S6 movie and get more people to read the comics and buy the toys.

But Disney won't do that

This! Blade, Jessica Drew/Spider-Woman and BP are all wasted in Marvel Studios' Hands.

 

[H.U.S.T.L.E.]

To be honest, I highly doubt that would be the case. By all accounts, Disney & Marvel Studios have an excellent working relationship and I doubt they would pressure one of their biggest cash cows into expanding their operation before they felt comfortable.

And also, that brings up an entirely different issue - I would imagine that MS owns the rights to the characters, so would Disney even be able to force them to produce Spider-Man or X-Men films? If I had to guess I'd say no, but maybe someone with better understanding of the contracts could elaborate on the legality of that.

 

[Eddie]

To be honest, I highly doubt that would be the case. By all accounts, Disney & Marvel Studios have an excellent working relationship and I doubt they would pressure one of their biggest cash cows into expanding their operation before they felt comfortable.

And also, that brings up an entirely different issue - I would imagine that MS owns the rights to the characters, so would Disney even be able to force them to produce Spider-Man or X-Men films? If I had to guess I'd say no, but maybe someone with better understanding of the contracts could elaborate on the legality of that.

Marvel Studios is owned by Disney. Disney can tell MS to do whatever they want. They just choose to not interfere too much because, as they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[Chance Jackson]

To be honest, I highly doubt that would be the case. By all accounts, Disney & Marvel Studios have an excellent working relationship and I doubt they would pressure one of their biggest cash cows into expanding their operation before they felt comfortable.

And also, that brings up an entirely different issue - I would imagine that MS owns the rights to the characters, so would Disney even be able to force them to produce Spider-Man or X-Men films? If I had to guess I'd say no, but maybe someone with better understanding of the contracts could elaborate on the legality of that.

Marvel Studios is owned by Disney. Disney can tell MS to do whatever they want. They just choose to not interfere too much because, as they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

This, Disney doesn't know a thing about making reliably successful superhero movies and Marvel studios only has one flop so there is no reason to mess with things on that front but X-Men and Spider-man are already reliably successful franchises if Marvel Studios got them back these franchises would be prioritized

 

[H.U.S.T.L.E.]

Alright then, I guess Disney COULD tell MS what to do if they regained the rights to X-Men & Spider-Man... I just don't see them forcing Marvel's hand, even if that were the case. I do think that Marvel would make an effort to include those franchises in some way, but not at the expense of any of the stories they want to tell.

Granted, all this is hypothetical, so who knows what the viability of those properties will be like by the time they make their way back?

 

[DrCosmic]

Disney owns, they can micromanage whatever the want.

Alright then, I guess Disney COULD tell MS what to do if they regained the rights to X-Men & Spider-Man... I just don't see them forcing Marvel's hand, even if that were the case. I do think that Marvel would make an effort to include those franchises in some way, but not at the expense of any of the stories they want to tell.

It has to be at the expense of a new story. Any Spidey or FF movie that Marvel Studios makes means that some new fresh property that expands the Marvel brand and fits with the plans Marvel has through 2028 is not being made, or is being pushed back, perhaps indefinitely.

What I do think Disney should do is actually sell more characters to Sony, namely Daredevil, Punisher, and Blade, because they work well with Spider-Man. Sony could create a larger cinematic universe than the lameass S6 movie and get more people to read the comics and buy the toys.

I actually really enjoy several of the many villain protagonist stories from Spidey comics, so I don't think of the S6 as lame at all.

That said, selling more characters is particularly genius. There are some projects Marvel will never get around to. I think DD, Punisher and Blade fit well into the Netflix corner of the MCU, but there are other properties, like Power Pack and Runaways that really beg to be made in the near future, but Marvel has a lot bigger (or more unified) fish to fry for the forseeable (through 2028) future. Or they could partner with other Disney studios, the way they are with Big Hero 6.

This is on top of whole imprints that they'll never EVER do that would be awesome under the right studio. Malibu Comics (Prime, Hardcase, Prototype!) and New Universe (Starbrand! Project Spitfire), Crossgen (Sigil, Meridian!) and Supreme Power (Hyperion!, Nighthawk) are particularly compelling things that would be great for everyone with another studio but do Marvel Studios no good. Being at another studio has done wonders for the Icon imprint with Kick-Ass and hopefully Nemesis soon.

If they were to sell something to Sony specifically (which I agree they wouldn't because they don't want to directly help create a competing universe), I think Spider-Woman would be a no brainer, even though she's not a Spider-Man character in 616. Gravity would be good, as would Alpha, if they don't already have him, as he kind of is a Spider-Man character. I almost want to say the New Warriors, but they have a bit too much mainstream (Avengers-flavored) Marvel in them. I think Runaways or Power Pack would be a good look for Sony as well, honestly. Runaways especially.

 

[Eddie]

Marvel Studios nearly made Runaways. They liked the script enough to keep Drew Pearce around. If (when) they bump up production, Runaways from Marvel Studios isn't really that unlikely.

 

[DrCosmic]

Why would the bump up production ever? Runaways doesn't tie into the rest of the MCU, by nature, it's in its own disconnected world.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Honestly, the only film rights that I can see reverting are Spider-Man if two consecutive films flop. Otherwise, I can see Spider-Man continuing as my favorite villains (Mysterio, Carnage, Shocker, Scorpion and Hobgoblin. I'd also add Spider-Slayer but he's currently just "Alistair Smythe" and is neither paralyzed nor does he have his armor yet) haven't been portrayed yet. I hope that Sony hangs onto the rights just so I can see my favorite baddies on the big screen.

That said, if Sony does get some large Spider-Man flops on their hands, then I wouldn't mind Spider-Man joining the Avengers.

I don't think they've had any flops. They've all been profitable so far.

I don't want the rights to revert for these reasons

1. Disney sucks. They canceled Avengers: EMH and replaced it with a crappy commercial for the MCU. Screw Disney.

2. They would shoehorn Spider-man and Wolverine in every Avengers movie

3. Spider-Man works better as a ground level hero

4. X-Men work better in their own universe

What I do think Disney should do is actually sell more characters to Sony, namely Daredevil, Punisher, and Blade, because they work well with Spider-Man. Sony could create a larger cinematic universe than the lameass S6 movie and get more people to read the comics and buy the toys.

But Disney won't do that because it is run by spiteful bastards who would rather have another firm lose than do something to benefit themselves.

Agreed with all of this. Secret Identity superheroes would work better in Sonys universe than Marvel Studios.

 

[Mr. Dent]

Disney owns, they can micromanage whatever the want.

Their relationship doesn't work like that, so no they can't. Disney has input, but Marvel Studios themselves have ultimate say in what happens with their films and what they greenlight.

 

[Eddie]

Why would the bump up production ever? Runaways doesn't tie into the rest of the MCU, by nature, it's in its own disconnected world.

It's been stated that Marvel may bump up production. Feige wouldn't commit to it, but he did imply that it's something they'd absolutely do under the right circumstances.

http://badassdigest.com/2014/03/18/marvel-could-start-releasing-three-or-even-four-movies-a-year/

As for Runaways, I don't see how it would naturally be tied to anything other than the rest of the MCU. The comics were not set in their own alternate universe. Those characters coexist with everyone else. Heck, one of the later members ties directly into Ultron, the villain of the next Avengers film.

 

[H.U.S.T.L.E.]

Their relationship doesn't work like that, so no they can't. Disney has input, but Marvel Studios themselves have ultimate say in what happens with their films and what they greenlight.

This was my impression too.

I figured since Marvel Studios was a subsidiary of Disney, Disney can't necessarily dictate those types of terms. If the rights did revert, I'm sure there would be some type of pressure from Disney to include X-Men & Spidey movies into the plans, depending on the reasons for the rights returning in the first place.

Most likely, those rights are only reverting after Fox & Sony have determined they're no longer profitable IPs to them, in which case MS wouldn't want to pump out anything related to those particular franchises in short order unless they could put a decidedly new spin on them.