Support NeoGAF

[Sibersk Esto]

Let's be honest, Fantastic Four isn't the most popular comic.

most big name comics sell like shit

 

[darkhunger]

I get the feeling YOU haven't been following the conversation.

The FF have been around since 1961, and continually in print in one form or another that entire time. Fox has over 50 years of stories and hundreds of antagonists available to use, and so far they've used a grand total of three.

If Marvel retconned the FF out of existence tomorrow, Fox would run out of material to make movies sometime in the year 3300.

Marvel pissing off the people who buy their books every month just to screw over Fox makes zero sense. At all. They'd only be hurting themselves.

I know. I said that on my first post on the subject.

If Fox can't find 10 stories worth adapting in the damn near 70 years of FF, then they are inept beyond belief.

It's not just stories. It's characters also. Granted, there hasn't been a prominent or valuable FF character created in the last 40 years.... But in X-Men, it could be a problem.

 

[Manmademan]

I know. I said that on my first post on the subject.

your first post on the subject is nonsense.

So it does make a bit of sense to just cancel all FF and X books and transfer the existing FF and X-characters to a Marvel-Owned franchise (ie Avengers or Inhumans) and tell their stories under the pretext of that franchise so Fox doesn't get those rights.

everyone here is trying to tell you that this logic makes no sense at all, but you are completely determined to ignore them.

 

[darkhunger]

your first post on the subject is nonsense.

everyone here is trying to tell you that this logic makes no sense at all, but you are completely determined to ignore them.

What's so nonsensical about it? If Marvel makes a new character under the FF banner or X-Men banner and that character goes on to become the next Wolverine or Spider-Man, then they are basically gift wrapping that character to Fox. It's not an impossible scenario, but unlikely, which is why I said this might not be worth much to Marvel/Disney.

 

[Jinkies]

I hope they make Star Wars a canonical part of Marvel.

 

[Slayven]

I know. I said that on my first post on the subject.



It's not just stories. It's characters also. Granted, there hasn't been a prominent or valuable FF character created in the last 40 years.... But in X-Men, it could be a problem.

What's so nonsensical about it? If Marvel makes a new character under the FF banner or X-Men banner and that character goes on to become the next Wolverine or Spider-Man, then they are basically gift wrapping that character to Fox. It's not an impossible scenario, but unlikely, which is why I said this might not be worth much to Marvel/Disney.

 

[darkhunger]

Forty years ago was 1975. Black Panther was created in 1966.

And he's more associated with the Avengers than the FF in any case, which is why Marvel retained his rights.

 

[Manmademan]

What's so nonsensical about it? If Marvel makes a new character under the FF banner or X-Men banner and that character goes on to become the next Wolverine or Spider-Man, then they are basically gift wrapping that character to Fox. It's an unlikely but not impossible scenario, which is why I said this might not be worth much to Marvel/Disney.

We've already told you, repeatedly. but let me type slowly and use big words.

1.) New Characters get created all the time. They almost NEVER catch on. Fox and Sony aren't chomping at the bit for new characters for their films, because there is no value here. Hollywood hates risk, and loves established characters with built in audiences. There have been a dozen or so new mutants created in the past couple of years, none of which have a chance in hell of showing up in films as anything more than a cameo. This is why despite superman having an extensive rogues gallery, virtually all of his films have had either lex luthor or zod as the villain. Of the ONE that didn't, the villain was so close to lex luthor he may as well have been. Hollywood wants name recognition, not new ideas.

2.) New Characters are irrelevant. Why would fox need to swoop in and steal this mythical "new wolverine" that someone might create when THEY ALREADY OWN WOLVERINE. They don't need "the next deadpool" because THEY ALREADY HAVE DEADPOOL. There is a finite amount of time and money available to make movies. It won't be wasted on any character that isn't old enough to buy his own beer.

3.) Fox already owns more characters than they could possibly use for the FF and the Xmen. they don't need more. They have access to decades of storylines that are already fan tested as being "good" or "bad." They have dozens of storylines that 99% of the moviegoing public has never seen, and that the remaining 1% will happily flood messageboards telling everyone to shell out their money, because it's awesome. They do not need new storylines.

4.) Cancelling books to spite fox will do absolutely nothing to Fox's bottom line, but it will enrage the 200-300K or so people that pay for marvel's books each month, and that's the last thing marvel wants. As I mentioned in a previous post, marvel's legions of fanboys are the most valuable resource they have. They happily flood social media and act as walking billboards for their product and pay for the privilege. Piss them off by canceling their books and fucking over beloved characters, and all that comes to a screeching halt.

 

[Slayven]

We've already told you, repeatedly. but let me type slowly and use big words.

1.) New Characters get created all the time. They almost NEVER catch on. Fox and Sony aren't chomping at the bit for new characters for their films, because there is no value here. Hollywood hates risk, and loves established characters with built in audiences. There have been a dozen or so new mutants created in the past couple of years, none of which have a chance in hell of showing up in films as anything more than a cameo.

2.) New Characters are irrelevant. Why would fox need to swoop in and steal this mythical "new wolverine" that someone might create when THEY ALREADY OWN WOLVERINE.

3.) Fox already owns more characters than they could possibly use for the FF and the Xmen. they don't need more. They have access to decades of storylines that are already fan tested as being "good" or "bad." They have dozens of storylines that 99% of the moviegoing public has never seen, and that the remaining 1% will happily flood messageboards telling everyone to shell out their money, because it's awesome. They do not need new storylines.

4.) Cancelling books to spite fox will do absolutely nothing to Fox's bottom line, but it will enrage the 200-300K or so people that pay for marvel's books each month, and that's the last thing marvel wants. As I mentioned in a previous post, marvel's legions of fanboys are the most valuable resource they have. They happily flood social media and act as walking billboards for their product and pay for the privilege. Piss them off by canceling their books and fucking over beloved characters, and all that comes to a screeching halt.

You don't want a Draken or Romulus movie?

 

[Mudcrab]

It's not just stories. It's characters also. Granted, there hasn't been a prominent or valuable FF character created in the last 40 years.... But in X-Men, it could be a problem.

Now I know you're trolling. If you're strictly talking character awareness and the average movie goer you're still fucking up. We've already seen that a studio with a good strategy can take a lesser known or even obscure yet workable character/property and make a summer blockbuster out of it.

 

[PsychBat!]

You don't want a Draken or Romulus movie?

I don't know who Draken is but a Daken and Romulus movie sounds cool.

Spoiler

lol

 

[duckroll]

Forty years ago was 1975. Black Panther was created in 1966.

And he's more associated with the Avengers than the FF in any case, which is why Marvel retained his rights.

I don't think we know for sure how some of these contracts work. It gets pretty weird sometimes.

The Kree, Ronan, Black Panther, the Inhumans, etc were all created in Fantastic Four. But Fox doesn't own any of those rights, Marvel does. Yet the Badoon, Shi'ar, Galactus, Silver Surfer, are all owned by Fox.

Kingpin was created as a Spider-man villain in the 60s, and was only introduced in Daredevil in the 80s. But his movie rights are attached to Daredevil rather than Spider-man.

Then there's the Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch thing too, which I don't think anyone really expected. Is that something specified by a contract, or was it something both studios came to an agreement with after tons of legal deliberation between their lawyers?

I don't think anyone who isn't directly involved in these legal discussions between studios can really say they know for sure who owns what rights when it comes to more complicated supporting characters and concepts. The same goes with new characters being created by Marvel in the comics.

For example, does Fox own the rights to use the Future Foundation, the Universal Inhumans, and Old Atlantis? They were all original concepts and characters created in Hickman's iconic Fantastic Four run. But Future Foundation was spun off into it's own series, and some of those are tied to characters and factions in other series. How would that work legally if Fox actually wanted to use them, and Marvel had some plans for them as well? We won't know until the legal teams actually examine the agreements in such a case.

 

[MHWilliams]

I don't see Marvel putting something else under the FF name, but letting the title die for a few years is perfectly fine. Thor has shown that they can do so with little issue. And FF's sales are really, really bad right now. It's been struggling at the under 30K level for a long time, and 20K is where Marvel tends think about to packing up shop.

I expect a post-Secret Wars relaunch of giving it a year or two off to drum up some hype and find a solid take on the team.

But cancelling it because of Fox? Nah.

 

[Slayven]

I don't know who Draken is but a Daken and Romulus movie sounds cool.

Spoiler

lol

Wolverine's asshole kid

Romulus

 

[darkhunger]

We've already told you, repeatedly. but let me type slowly and use big words.

1.) New Characters get created all the time. They almost NEVER catch on. Fox and Sony aren't chomping at the bit for new characters for their films, because there is no value here. Hollywood hates risk, and loves established characters with built in audiences. There have been a dozen or so new mutants created in the past couple of years, none of which have a chance in hell of showing up in films as anything more than a cameo.

Reading comprehension much? I said it was unlikely, and you're just repeating what I'm saying.

2.) New Characters are irrelevant. Why would fox need to swoop in and steal this mythical "new wolverine" that someone might create when THEY ALREADY OWN WOLVERINE.

If you know anything about the X-Men franchise, there are quite a few popular X-Men characters that are actually fairly recent creations compared to other Marvel franchises. Deadpool, Cable and X-Force, for example, were created in the late 80's/early 90's, and all three are slated to get movies soon. Characters like X-23 were created after Fox signed the movie deal (and who knows? A female Wolverine movie might be a potential (stupid) idea that they go with). New characters aren't completely worthless.

Whether they are worth alienating fans is a different story but I'm tired of repeating my points to people who don't bother to read what I'm actually saying.

3.) Fox already owns more characters than they could possibly use for the FF and the Xmen. they don't need more. They have access to decades of storylines that are already fan tested as being "good" or "bad." They have dozens of storylines that 99% of the moviegoing public has never seen, and that the remaining 1% will happily flood messageboards telling everyone to shell out their money, because it's awesome. They do not need new storylines.

Yet they've gone through quite a few of the prominent and famous X-Men storyarcs already... There's still a few left... But it's only going to get more and more obscure from here on out.

4.) Cancelling books to spite fox will do absolutely nothing to Fox's bottom line, but it will enrage the 200-300K or so people that pay for marvel's books each month, and that's the last thing marvel wants. As I mentioned in a previous post, marvel's legions of fanboys are the most valuable resource they have. They happily flood social media and act as walking billboards for their product and pay for the privilege. Piss them off by canceling their books and fucking over beloved characters, and all that comes to a screeching halt.

No one is suggesting cancelling X-Men. That's absolutely ridiculous.

I don't think we know for sure how some of these contracts work. It gets pretty weird sometimes.

The Kree, Ronan, Black Panther, the Inhumans, etc were all created in Fantastic Four. But Fox doesn't own any of those rights, Marvel does. Yet the Badoon, Shi'ar, Galactus, Silver Surfer, are all owned by Fox.

Kingpin was created as a Spider-man villain in the 60s, and was only introduced in Daredevil in the 80s. But his movie rights are attached to Daredevil rather than Spider-man.

Then there's the Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch thing too, which I don't think anyone really expected. Is that something specified by a contract, or was it something both studios came to an agreement with after tons of legal deliberation between their lawyers?

I don't think anyone who isn't directly involved in these legal discussions between studios can really say they know for sure who owns what rights when it comes to more complicated supporting characters and concepts. The same goes with new characters being created by Marvel in the comics.

For example, does Fox own the rights to use the Future Foundation, the Universal Inhumans, and Old Atlantis? They were all original concepts and characters created in Hickman's iconic Fantastic Four run. But Future Foundation was spun off into it's own series, and some of those are tied to characters and factions in other series. How would that work legally if Fox actually wanted to use them, and Marvel had some plans for them as well? We won't know until the legal teams actually examine the agreements in such a case.

True. But like I already brought up, Fox has used several X-Men characters that were created after their contract was signed in the late 90's, including Kid Omega, Azazel, Spike, Angel Salvadore, etc. They also used Emma Frost's diamond form which was a Grant Morrison creation. So I'm not simply making this up.

 

[Manmademan]

Reading comprehension much? I said it was unlikely, and you're just repeating what I'm saying.

Reading comprehension much? You said it was "unlikely." I'm saying it's impossible and will never, ever happen. There's a fine distinction.

If you know anything about the X-Men franchise,

If only I knew something about Marvel Comics! oh boy, i would be so happy

there are quite a few popular X-Men characters that are actually fairly recent creations compared to other Marvel franchises. Deadpool, Cable and X-Force, for example, were created in the late 80's/early 90's,

Fairly recent??!

Cable was created in 1986.
Deadpool was created in 1991.
X-Force first hit stands in 1991.

The newest concept here is twenty four years old.

and all three are slated to get movies soon. Characters like X-23 were created after Fox signed the movie deal (and who knows? A female Wolverine movie might be a potential (stupid) idea that they go with). New characters aren't completely worthless.

I never said they were worthless. you can get quite a bit of mileage out of newer characters- the GOTG (or at least the team that got a movie) are a relatively recent concept (if not recent CREATIONS), as far as comic characters go, and worked fine. But that was the longest of longshots and took a miracle to get there. Hollywood is not paying for new concepts and is extremely reluctant to waste money on them. One look at which characters actually get films and which ones don't makes this really, really obvious.

Yet they've gone through quite a few of the prominent and famous X-Men storyarcs already... There's still a few left... But it's only going to get more and more obscure from here on out.

They've done no such thing. They barely touched on days of future past and the dark phoenix arc. Marvel has done a giant x-men only crossover EVERY YEAR since "fall of the mutants" in 1988. If they ONLY did those storylines, they would run out sometime in 2040.

True. But like I already brought up, Fox has used several X-Men characters that were created after their contract was signed in the late 90's, including Kid Omega, Azazel, Spike, Angel Salvadore, etc. They also used Emma Frost's diamond form which was a Grant Morrison creation. So I'm not simply making this up.

Reading comprehension much? nothing you listed amounted to more than a throwaway cameo. They are not building movies around new characters. Hell, every X-men movie they've ever made sans first class has been "Wolverine and his amazing friends" despite the characters they have at their disposal.

 

[Mudcrab]

Yet they've gone through quite a few of the prominent and famous X-Men storyarcs already... There's still a few left... But it's only going to get more and more obscure from here on out.

What X-men storyline isn't obscure to the average person who sees these movies? There are either good stories or bad stories and there are plenty of both.

True. But like I already brought up, Fox has used several X-Men characters that were created after their contract was signed in the late 90's, including Kid Omega, Azazel, Spike, Angel Salvadore, etc. They also used Emma Frost's diamond form which was a Grant Morrison creation. So I'm not simply making this up.

Trust me. There's much more Fox can work with here.

 

[Neoxon]

What's so nonsensical about it? If Marvel makes a new character under the FF banner or X-Men banner and that character goes on to become the next Wolverine or Spider-Man, then they are basically gift wrapping that character to Fox. It's not an impossible scenario, but unlikely, which is why I said this might not be worth much to Marvel/Disney.

- Black Panther
- The Inhumans
- Miles Morales

Two of the three examples are being put to use in Phase 3. Miles can't be used because his Spider-Man persona would piss off Sony (assuming the worst-case scenario & the Marvel-Sony deal doesn't pan out). Marvel also has Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew), but again, can't her her persona without confusing casual fans & Sony even though Marvel would be in the right.

 

[darkhunger]

Reading comprehension much? You said it was "unlikely." I'm saying it's impossible and will never, ever happen. There's a fine distinction.

Well, I'm saying you're wrong. If random characters can become overnight sensations like Ms. Marvel and Spider-Gwen then they can certainly come up with someone like that for FF or X-Men.

If only I knew something about Marvel Comics! oh boy, i would be so happy


Fairly recent??!

Cable was created in 1986.
Deadpool was created in 1991.
X-Force first hit stands in 1991.

The newest concept here is twenty four years old.

Cable was created in 1990. Baby Summers doesn't count since him being Cable was a retcon done in the mid-90's.

And my point being that unlike other Marvel franchises, there are important and prominent characters in the X-Men scattered throughout their history. Which makes your point that it's IMPOSSIBLE to create another prominent X-Men character woefully, woefully short-sighted.

I never said they were worthless. you can get quite a bit of mileage out of newer characters- the GOTG (or at least the team that got a movie) are a relatively recent concept (if not recent CREATIONS), as far as comic characters go, and worked fine. But that was the longest of longshots and took a miracle to get there. Hollywood is not paying for new concepts and is extremely reluctant to waste money on them. One look at which characters actually get films and which ones don't makes this really, really obvious.

Thanks for mentioning GOTG and proving my point. Impossible? lol.

They've done no such thing. They barely touched on days of future past and the dark phoenix arc. Marvel has done a giant x-men only crossover EVERY YEAR since "fall of the mutants" in 1988. If they ONLY did those storylines, they would run out sometime in 2040.

Right. The day Fox makes a movie out of "The Twelve" or the "Eve of Destruction" is when Fox needs to start thinking about giving up their rights.

- Black Panther
- The Inhumans
- Miles Morales

Two of the three examples are being put to use in Phase 3. Miles can't be used because his Spider-Man persona would piss off Sony (assuming the worst-case scenario & the Marvel-Sony deal doesn't pan out). Marvel also has Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew), but again, can't her her persona without confusing casual fans & Sony even though Marvel would be in the right.

IIRC both Black Panther and Inhumans were film concepts going back to the 90's... So most likely Marvel just omitted those characters specifically from the Fox contract. But like duckroll said, we'll never know until the language from that contract gets leaked somehow.

 

[Manmademan]

Well, I'm saying you're wrong. If random characters can become overnight sensations like Ms. Marvel and Spider-Gwen then they can certainly come up with someone like that for FF or X-Men.

neither one of those properties is an "overnight sensation." Last month Ms. Marvel was the 80th best selling property- behind such hot sellers as "Aquaman" and "Sinestro." "Spider Gwen" doesn't even HAVE a book.

Cable was created in 1990. Baby Summers doesn't count since him being Cable was a recon done in the mid-90's.

Thank you for the unnecessary history lesson- but if you're going to simply dismiss storylines you don't like because they don't work for your terrible argument, it's going to go poorly for you. Should we go back to the original concept of Cable being a future version of cannonball? in that case he was created in 1982..

Oh my, did someone just show up to a battle of wits unarmed?

And my point being that unlike other Marvel franchises, there are important and prominent characters in the X-Men scattered throughout their history. Which makes you're point that it's IMPOSSIBLE to create another prominent X-Men character woefully, woefully short-sighted.

For someone who is fixated on reading comprehension, yours is shockingly poor. it's perfectly possible to create a prominent X-men character. new characters get thought up every week. It's NOT possible to create someone new that has any chance at all of having any value to Fox as a film property, because hollywood hates risk. Goldballs may be the best X-man of all time (and he totally is) but you aren't going to see a Goldballs movie no matter how well uncanny Xmen sells.

Thanks for mentioning GOTG and proving my point. Impossible? lol.

GOTG doesn't prove your point at all, son. That property came explicitly out of a program for unlikely properties that marvel had little intention of using. Fox doesn't exactly have one of these. And even THEN the run that GOTG was based on was critically acclaimed, using legacy characters that weren't new at all.

Right. The day Fox makes a movie out of "The Twelve" or the "Eve of Destruction" is when Fox needs to start thinking about giving up their rights.

As someone else pointed out (and you ignored) it doesn't matter to the average moviegoer WHAT the storyline is- They are ALL obscure, there's only good and bad. Fox is in a position where they can pick and choose from the best of the best storylines over the last five decades at will.

You're the master of missing the point.

pretty sure you've got that one locked up tight, chief.

 

[Father_Brain]

How do we know that Marvel has the rights to Miles Morales? Did I miss something?

Jessica Drew wouldn't surprise me, though, given her lack of historical ties to the Spider-Man property.

 

[Slayven]

How do we know that Marvel has the rights to Miles Morales? Did I miss something?

Jessica Drew wouldn't surprise me, though, given her lack of historical ties to the Spider-Man property.

If Marvel gave me the rights to Jessica Drew I would give them right back. Julie Carpenter and up.

 

[Neoxon]

How do we know that Marvel has the rights to Miles Morales? Did I miss something?

Jessica Drew wouldn't surprise me, though, given her lack of historical ties to the Spider-Man property.

The Sony contract said that Sony had the rights to Spider-Man characters (listed by name, no less) made up to that point. Miles Morales was not listed by name like the rest as he didn't exist until recently. As such, Marvel has the rights to Miles.

 

[Father_Brain]

The Sony contract said that Sony had the rights to Spider-Man characters (listed by name, no less) made up to that point. Miles Morales was not listed by name like the rest as he didn't exist until recently. As such, Marvel has the rights to Miles.

Source? You could be right, but I don't recall hearing this.

 

[PsychBat!]

-snip-

MANMADEMAN SMASH!!!!

 

[Neoxon]

Source? You could be right, but I don't recall hearing this.

I recall reading an article saying that Sony specifically had the rights to a list of characters, listing a bunch of Spidey characters made up to that point, but it didn't have Jessica Drew.

Sony was unaware of the fact that Marvel has Jessica Drew & considered using her in one of their movies (see one of the SonyGate emails). It's kinda like how James Gunn was gonna use Bug & the Badoon in GotG, but realized that Marvel doesn't own the movie rights to any of them.

 

[PsychBat!]

Wolverine's asshole kid

Yeah but... y-you spelled "Daken" with an "R" in between "D" and "A", slay. D:

 

[darkhunger]

MANMADEMAN SMASH!!!!

Even I have to admit that was a pretty good burn.

I humbly concede.

 

[Manmademan]

Even I have to admit that was a pretty good burn.

I humbly concede.

clearly one of my better works.

a good thing too, because it's late for me and I have work in the morning. take it easy everybody

 

[Schweinehund]

what is going on in here

secret wars is slowly causing insanity

 

[darkhunger]

what is going on in here

secret wars is slowly causing insanity

So THAT'S why it's the announcement to end all announcements....

 

[Gambit 1138]

Will these pizza toppings be coming or going? Eye wonder

 

[Neoxon]

Hopefully Richard Rider isn't a topping that falls off, that's what I'm scared about.

 

[Pluto]

it doesn't have to be, because the FF are iconic. Marvel's bread and butter (in terms of comic fans) are people who have been reading about these characters in one form or another for the last 20-40 years, give or take a decade.

I thought their bread and butter were kids begging their parents to buy spidey pyjamas. Don't they make most of their money with merchandise? The comics are probably the companies least important division and if they can't ein new fans they should just stop the comics altogether. Cartoons and movies work much better as advertisement for the merch, the public is actually aware of them.

This reboot or not-reboot could be a good thing if they do it right, screw old fans, try to get new ones.

 

[mreddie]

Will these pizza toppings be coming or going? Eye wonder

Depends on the film, I hope both stay.

 

[Neoxon]

I thought their bread and butter were kids begging their parents to buy spidey pyjamas. Don't they make most of their money with merchandise? The comics are probably the companies least important division and if they can't ein new fans they should just stop the comics altogether. Cartoons and movies work much better as advertisement for the merch, the public is actually aware of them.

This reboot or not-reboot could be a good thing if they do it right, screw old fans, try to get new ones.

And they've already outlawed X-Men & F4 cartoons (though characters from both do make the occasional cameo, mainly Wolverine, Deadpool, Sabretooth, & The Thing.....& the F4 in The Collector's collection). F4 merchandise has been banned, & they've scaled down on X-Men merchandise (they still exist, there's just much less of it beyond the likes of Hot Topic).

Basically, you can't easily get X-Men pajamas or lunch boxes that aren't vintage stuff form the 90's (& in the F4's case, you can't get them at all unless they're vintage).

 

[Gambit 1138]

I don't think they will be getting rid of X-Men since the 90s version of the team is coming back which ironically is famous for its FOX produced animated series

 

[Neoxon]

I don't think they will be getting rid of X-Men since the 1992 version of the team is back which ironically is famous for its FOX produced animated series

That was my point earlier. 5 (6 if you count AvX) known Battleworld locations are X-Men-specific. The mutants will be fine as far as the comics go.

 

[Gambit 1138]

Depends on the film, I hope both stay.

I saw an interesting theory on another forum that the Hank Pym that survives Secret Wars is the Pym of MC2 who is supposedly an older man. That would jive with the hints that the various versions of each character will merge and only one will survive.

Of course there is also that upcoming cover of Hank Pym being electrocuted by Beyonder but Gaf thinks I'm crazy for suggesting Pym will be killed because he is such an integral character in the current Marvel Universe *rolls eyes*

That was my point earlier. 5 (6 if you count AvX) known Battleworld locations are X-Men-specific. The mutants will be fine as far as the comics go.

I think its more realistic to expect that they won't acknowledge or make them look similar to the film versions which they were actually doing for a time in the early 00s in both New X-Men and Ultimate.

 

[mreddie]

I saw an interesting theory on another forum that the Hank Pym that survives Secret Wars is the Pym of MC2 who is supposedly an older man. That would jive with the hints that the various versions of each character will merge and only one will survive.

Of course there is also that upcoming cover of Hank Pym being electrocuted by Beyonder but Gaf thinks I'm crazy for suggesting Pym will be killed because he is such an integral character in the current Marvel Universe *rolls eyes*

That's my biggest fear, Pym will get replaced by an older Pym and Janet will be replaced by Hope.

Pym is central to the universe because founding Avengers member and Ultron. He's a big deal despite what some think. Doesn't mean he might get the ax. Remember when Hawkguy was killed off for a brief bit?

 

[mreddie]

And they've already outlawed X-Men & F4 cartoons (though characters from both do make the occasional cameo, mainly Wolverine, Deadpool, Sabretooth, & The Thing.....& the F4 in The Collector's collection). F4 merchandise has been banned, & they've scaled down on X-Men merchandise (they still exist, there's just much less of it beyond the likes of Hot Topic).

Basically, you can't easily get X-Men pajamas or lunch boxes that aren't vintage stuff form the 90's (& in the F4's case, you can't get them at all unless they're vintage).

Toy wise I get, gaming wise depends. But I see some new X Men merch every now and then. Cartoon wise, I don't know aside from Wolverine and Deadpool, haven't seen any mutant in the recent cartoons of you don't count Disk Wars.

 

[Neoxon]

Toy wise I get, gaming wise depends. But I see some new X-Men merch every now and then. Cartoon wise, I don't know aside from Wolverine and Deadpool, haven't seen any mutant in the recent cartoons of you don't count Disk Wars.

Maybe at Hot Topic, but not the likes of Walmart or Kroger. They exist, you just have to look for them. As for F4 merchandise, let's just say you'd have better luck looking for a Villager or Wii Fit Trainer Amiibo in North America.

On the cartoons, the existence of mutants is shown by Wolverine, Deadpool, & Sabertooth. Star-Lord also made a passing mention of the X-Men, so it's not like they don't exist in the recent cartoons. Marvel just chooses to not acknowledge the team.

 

[duckroll]

Isn't the issue with X-men and F4 merchandising more about Fox than Marvel at this point? I mean, if Fox wanted to double down on their movie rights they could push for toys, shirts, all sorts of stuff. Marvel wouldn't actually -stop- them. My understanding is that Marvel is passive about doing it themselves because they benefit less from it compared to pushing the brands they have full merchandise rights for.

Fox just doesn't seem very good at the merchandising game. Look what happened to Avatar!

 

[Neoxon]

Isn't the issue with X-men and F4 merchandising more about Fox than Marvel at this point? I mean, if Fox wanted to double down on their movie rights they could push for toys, shirts, all sorts of stuff. Marvel wouldn't actually -stop- them. My understanding is that Marvel is passive about doing it themselves because they benefit less from it compared to pushing the brands they have full merchandise rights for.

Fox just doesn't seem very good at the merchandising game. Look what happened to Avatar!

If it's comic-related, Fox doesn't get a dime.

 

[darkhunger]

Isn't the issue with X-men and F4 merchandising more about Fox than Marvel at this point? I mean, if Fox wanted to double down on their movie rights they could push for toys, shirts, all sorts of stuff. Marvel wouldn't actually -stop- them. My understanding is that Marvel is passive about doing it themselves because they benefit less from it compared to pushing the brands they have full merchandise rights for.

Do they actually own merchandise production rights or just a cut of the revenues (related to the movie versions of the characters I presume...) I always assumed it was the latter.

Fox just doesn't seem very good at the merchandising game. Look what happened to Avatar!

To me their merchandising always seemed pretty decent back in the days with Simpsons stuff everywhere, and Aliens stuff too... Is it any different now?

 

[nicanica]

Fuck it.

I'm on board with the possible reboot. If and ONLY if we can get:

• The return of Dick Rider
• Iron Fist and Misty back together again
• Sam Alexander stays on Battle World when it explodes
• Retcon everything from Original Sin
• Bring back the man that fights and fucks like a Demon. (Nick Fury)
• Make Silver Surfer relevant again
• Leave Phylla Vell Dead
• Give Uncle Ben the Infinity Gaunlet (Let's see how responsible you can fucking be old man.)

 

[duckroll]

Do they actually own merchandise production rights or just a cut of the revenues (related to the movie versions of the characters I presume...) I always assumed it was the latter.

I think they have production rights for anything related to the movies. Not sure though. It makes sense to me, since Marvel actually had to buy back the merchandising rights for Spider-man from Sony.

 

[MHWilliams]

I recall reading an article saying that Sony specifically had the rights to a list of characters, listing a bunch of Spidey characters made up to that point, but it didn't have Jessica Drew.

Sony was unaware of the fact that Marvel has Jessica Drew & considered using her in one of their movies (see one of the SonyGate emails). It's kinda like how James Gunn was gonna use Bug & the Badoon in GotG, but realized that Marvel doesn't own the movie rights to any of them.

Screenrant has a list.

Will these pizza toppings be coming or going? Eye wonder

If there's any sort of reboot (which I doubt) they'll scrub wifebeater Hank Pym like a bad habit. Pym will stay around, but that bit of his past will be gone.

Isn't the issue with X-men and F4 merchandising more about Fox than Marvel at this point? I mean, if Fox wanted to double down on their movie rights they could push for toys, shirts, all sorts of stuff. Marvel wouldn't actually -stop- them. My understanding is that Marvel is passive about doing it themselves because they benefit less from it compared to pushing the brands they have full merchandise rights for.

Fox just doesn't seem very good at the merchandising game. Look what happened to Avatar!

Marvel has outright said the problem is they don't make much from merchandise for the films they don't own, so they'll focus on what they do own. It's less they're trying to hamstring Fox and Sony and more they're trying to maximize the stuff they have.

Marvel's Tom Brevoort:

You’re talking about issues involving licensing and animation, and those are questions you’d need to ask to our people that oversee those areas.

I will say two things, though, both of which are pretty self-evident, I think.

1) There are only so many hours in the day, and so many initiatives you can have going at once,. So you need to pick and choose where you want to spend your time and your efforts.

2) If you had two things, and on one you earned 100% of the revenues from the efforts that you put into making it, and the other you earned a much smaller percentage for the same amount of time and effort, you’d be more likely to concentrate more heavily on the first, wouldn’t you?

 

[Gambit 1138]

I recall reading an article saying that Sony specifically had the rights to a list of characters, listing a bunch of Spidey characters made up to that point, but it didn't have Jessica Drew.

Sony was unaware of the fact that Marvel has Jessica Drew & considered using her in one of their movies (see one of the SonyGate emails). It's kinda like how James Gunn was gonna use Bug & the Badoon in GotG, but realized that Marvel doesn't own the movie rights to any of them.

wait what? Why?

 

[PsychBat!]

No Bug?

:'(