Apocalypse X-Men Apocalypse News and Discussion - Part 1

[psylockolussus]

I'm not worried. They already announced the release dates for their Marvel based films for 2015 to 2018. I'm sure Fox will release dates in 2015 or 2016, if not this year for their Marvel based films for 2019/2020.

If they don't make X-Force and Deadpool because there are already a lot of comic-book films out there or they just don't want to do it, then I'd just be happy that they would just focus on X-Men and Fantastic Four.

 

[HIA]

so basically Avengers fans get a huge universe, DC fans will get theirs, Spiderman fans will get it too.... everyone except X-Men fans.
exciting.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I think Fox will branch out, but they're wary as the last time it failed and pushed the franchise back.

Now that things are on track they'll probably start to expand again but not rush it. I think after Apocalypse well be getting more announcements.

They'd be silly to ignore the reaction to the Deadpool test footage. I'm glad that they aren't forcing a cross-over between F4 and X-Men just yet.

 

[hoy-small-fry]

Yeah, even if it was a mistake that it got released, the Deadpool footage reaction must have piqued their interest a lot

 

[CyclopsSummers]

They said DOFP leads to Apocalypse, and Kinberg said we should look at end of DOFP.

Whats the problem with Apocalypse and the end of DOFP

 

[JP]

so basically Avengers fans get a huge universe, DC fans will get theirs, Spiderman fans will get it too.... everyone except X-Men fans.
exciting.

Fox is easily second after Marvel right now in terms of successful universe building and overall quality.

 

[Donut]

I'm glad that they aren't forcing a cross-over between F4 and X-Men just yet.

It can't be done unless they want the Mouse's lawyers knocking n their doors. I dare fox to do it t:

 

[ciscostudent561]

It can't be done unless they want the Mouse's lawyers knocking n their doors. I dare fox to do it t:

Galactus Vs. Phoenix!
DO IT!!

 

[JP]

I love this idea that a massive conglomerate would be unaware of what they can and can't do in regards to contracts.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I love this idea that a massive conglomerate would be unaware of what they can and can't do in regards to contracts.

I find it more amusing that fans think they know the details

 

[Zarex]

I love this idea that a massive conglomerate would be unaware of what they can and can't do in regards to contracts.

Massive conglomerates may be smart. But people who work at them are often stupid - or at the very least, ill informed.

We've seen concept art released for GOTG which included the Badoon. The same alien race which James Gunn has stated in interviews are not under the control of Marvel. So who ordered the Badoon concept art if the rights issues are clear? Gunn also announced wanting to put Bug in GOTG in the sequel, but recently backtracked stating that the character rights are not controlled by Marvel (probably Hasbro).

Kevin Feige has gone back and forth on the Namor rights. His recent statement is that they're "complicated".

Avi Arad has said that Sony has the Kingpin rights. You know, the character played by Vincent D'Onofrio in the Daredevil Netflix series.

Simon Kinberg has said that he wants to put an X-Men TV show on the air, despite the fact that the "Mutant X" lawsuit clarified those rights were held by Marvel.

So when Kinberg says that he wants to combine the two separate Marvel cinematic licensing agreements for the X-Men and the FF, though the odds of crossover wording being in the two distinct 90s era contracts are slim, should we believe him because he is working for a massive conglomerate?

 

[JP]

I'm referring to this idea that the studio would somehow cluelessly greenlight something that they can't. Most of the examples you gave are things that have never come into fruition. Doesn't matter what a writer or a director says. Last I checked, Badoon wasn't in Guardians and Kingpin has yet to appear in a Spidey film...

A filmmaker can talk about wanting to do whatever they want, doesn't mean the studio is going to say "OK!" before checking first. You think Singer and Whedon simply added Quicksilver to their films without both studios double and triple checking their contracts first?


Side note: Mutant X was a Marvel show and it was 20th Century Fox who sued them, saying that Mutant X was "too similar" to X-Men. So yeah, Fox can have an X-Men show if they want.

 

[Dasher10]

I'm referring to this idea that the studio would somehow cluelessly greenlight something that they can't. Most of the examples you gave are things that have never come into fruition. Doesn't matter what a writer or a director says. Last I checked, Badoon wasn't in Guardians and Kingpin has yet to appear in a Spidey film...

A filmmaker can talk about wanting to do whatever they want, doesn't mean the studio is going to say "OK!" before checking first. You think Singer and Whedon simply added Quicksilver to their films without both studios double and triple checking their contracts first?


Side note: Mutant X was a Marvel show and it was 20th Century Fox who sued them, saying that Mutant X was "too similar" to X-Men. So yeah, Fox can have an X-Men show if they want.

Actually, from reading the court documents, both studios need to co-operate.

 

[Zarex]

I'm referring to this idea that the studio would somehow cluelessly greenlight something that they can't. Most of the examples you gave are things that have never come into fruition. Doesn't matter what a writer or a director says. Last I checked, Badoon wasn't in Guardians and Kingpin has yet to appear in a Spidey film...

A filmmaker can talk about wanting to do whatever they want, doesn't mean the studio is going to say "OK!" before checking first. You think Singer and Whedon simply added Quicksilver to their films without both studios double and triple checking their contracts first?

Agreed. I just wanted to emphasize that it is quite reasonable for fans of the various Marvel cinematic franchises to not know how the licensing agreements to the various characters work, as people who should be in the know struggle with this issue as well.

Side note: Mutant X was a Marvel show and it was 20th Century Fox who sued them, saying that Mutant X was "too similar" to X-Men. So yeah, Fox can have an X-Men show if they want.

I've posted this a few times. It's from the Appeal of the 2001 Mutant X dispute between Twentieth Century Fox and Marvel Entertainment.
http://openjurist.org/277/f3d/253/twentieth-v-marvel

The Agreement reserved all television rights to Marvel, subject to a proviso, critical to Fox's pending contract claim, that Marvel would not "produce, distribute or exploit or authorize the production, distribution or exploitation of any live-action motion picture" without Fox's consent (the "Freeze").

Now, there could have been agreements between FOX and Marvel subsequent to 2002 which altered this arrangement. But if FOX controlled broadcast rights to the X-Men, wouldn't there be a show on FOX (or FX, or FXX) right now? Would FOX be paying WB for a Batman TV show without Batman if they could put X-Force, New Mutants, X-23, Daken or New Mutants on one of their networks? I don't believe so.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Actually, from reading the court documents, both studios need to co-operate.

Isn't that the same deal for Merchandise?

They share the rights or one has more profit share than the other but they both have to sign-off on it.

Fox probably wouldn't sign off as they may not get much or any profit from them or Marvel may not sign off as they won't want to raise brand awareness of a competing franchise, even if they'd get the profit

I dunno

 

[JP]

I've posted this a few times. It's from the Appeal of the 2001 Mutant X dispute between Twentieth Century Fox and Marvel Entertainment.
http://openjurist.org/277/f3d/253/twentieth-v-marvel

The Agreement reserved all television rights to Marvel, subject to a proviso, critical to Fox's pending contract claim, that Marvel would not "produce, distribute or exploit or authorize the production, distribution or exploitation of any live-action motion picture" without Fox's consent (the "Freeze").

Now, there could have been agreements between FOX and Marvel subsequent to 2002 which altered this arrangement. But if FOX controlled broadcast rights to the X-Men, wouldn't there be a show on FOX (or FX, or FXX) right now? Would FOX be paying WB for a Batman TV show without Batman if they could put X-Force, New Mutants, X-23, Daken or New Mutants on one of their networks? I don't believe so.

Ah, I didn't know there was an appeal.

 

[Zarex]

Isn't that the same deal for Merchandise?

They share the rights or one has more profit share than the other but they both have to sign-off on it.

Fox probably wouldn't sign off as they may not get much or any profit from them or Marvel may not sign off as they won't want to raise brand awareness of a competing franchise, even if they'd get the profit

I dunno

From the 2008 Marvel Entertainment 10K, in regards to Studio Licensing:

Under these licenses, we retain control over merchandising rights and retain more than 50% of merchandising-based royalty revenue.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/09/9999999997-09-017007

So Marvel (now Disney/Marvel) can sell DOFP, The Wolverine, XM:A and FF movie tie in merchandise without FOX's input. But they have to cut FOX a check for their % interest.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

From the 2008 Marvel Entertainment 10K, in regards to Studio Licensing:

Under these licenses, we retain control over merchandising rights and retain more than 50% of merchandising-based royalty revenue.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/09/9999999997-09-017007

So Marvel (now Disney/Marvel) can sell DOFP, The Wolverine, XM:A and FF movie tie in merchandise without FOX's input. But they have to cut FOX a check for their % interest.

So Marvel are sitting on the licenses so as not to raise brand awareness or share a % of profit with Fox?

They could make merch, make money & please fans but choose not to

I really wanted Hot Toys of X-Men Days of Future Past. Sucks we couldn't get them.

 

[Zarex]

So Marvel are sitting on the licenses so as not to raise brand awareness or share a % of profit with Fox?

They could make merch, make money & please fans but choose not to

Independent Marvel wouldn't have sat on the licenses. But Disney Consumer Products, which can't make Frozen merchandise fast enough and is gearing up to flood stores with

Spoiler

Dancing Baby Groots

in times for Christmas? They're not cutting anyone a check.

Hopefully Disney and FOX can reach some kind of arrangement, as the lack of ancillary revenue could be what's holding up the Deadpool movie.

 

[Paradox1]

so basically Avengers fans get a huge universe, DC fans will get theirs, Spiderman fans will get it too.... everyone except X-Men fans.
exciting.

I'm fine with the way the x-men universe is currently constructed. It's huge right now able to tell stories in any place at any time on earth. With the possibility of expanding into space with the introduction of the Shiar.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I read an article about the Spider-Man Cinematic Universe that cited this franchise as progressing forward but unlike most others excelled at staying fresh and unique.

• X1-X3 were the trilogy of Mutants fighting for their place in the world.
• Origins Wolverine tried to be a mercenary revenge movie
• First Class was a Bond-Esque Cold War drama
• The Wolverine was a chase movie in a unique location (for a CBM)
• X-Men Days of Future Past was a Sci-Fi time-travel adventure
• X-Men: Apocalypse is shaping up to be a disaster movie (not to be confused with a disaster of a movie)

That's a lot of variety for one franchise

 

[rex76]

Speaking of GotG and X-Men, I'm into the music of both. And I also agree they are "different beasts". See these videos with the composers of each:

X-Men Film Composer John Ottman here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1Un-W7WN3A

Guardians of The Galaxy Film Composer Tyler Bates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvyoLDkCYQQ

 

[JP]

The first time I saw GotG i was almost taken out of the film because the first two notes of the Star Lord theme sounded like Xavier's theme in DoFP.

 

[marvelrobbins]

I find it funny that some here think they know more about what fox can and can't do than Fox does.

We all know disney control much of X-Men chandize which Is why there will
never be any X-Men merchandize again as long as fox makes X-Men films.

Fox sued marvel over mutant X due to fact they felt show was ripping off X-men.SO yeah marvel controls TV rights ofr X-men not that they will do anything
with it.

 

[ciscostudent561]

I read an article about the Spider-Man Cinematic Universe that cited this franchise as progressing forward but unlike most others excelled at staying fresh and unique.

• X1-X3 were the trilogy of Mutants fighting for their place in the world.
• Origins Wolverine tried to be a mercenary revenge movie
• First Class was a Bond-Esque Cold War drama
• The Wolverine was a chase movie in a unique location (for a CBM)
• X-Men Days of Future Past was a Sci-Fi time-travel adventure
• X-Men: Apocalypse is shaping up to be a disaster movie (not to be confused with a disaster of a movie)

That's a lot of variety for one franchise

I like you very much