Stupid Marvel. Why would they do this?
- Thread starter Agenda
- Start date
I believe these rights were sold during the 90s when Marvel was in or climbing out of bankruptcy and desperate for cash.
According to one Disney insider from the the Eisner-era, these deals and the management problem was why Eisner didn't purchase Marvel back then.
According to one Disney insider from the the Eisner-era, these deals and the management problem was why Eisner didn't purchase Marvel back then.
For perpetuity? What?
Then what was all that talk about the studios having to make a film or have one in development within 5yrs of the last film made? Seems there would be no rush for XM:FC or Wolverine Origins 2 or rushing to reboot FF then, yet it seems they are.
So why then was Columbia left out of this with Ghost Rider and why did Punisher revert back from Lionsgate? If I was a studio exec there I'd call foul that I didn't have the same agreement as Fox and Sony.
Then what was all that talk about the studios having to make a film or have one in development within 5yrs of the last film made? Seems there would be no rush for XM:FC or Wolverine Origins 2 or rushing to reboot FF then, yet it seems they are.
So why then was Columbia left out of this with Ghost Rider and why did Punisher revert back from Lionsgate? If I was a studio exec there I'd call foul that I didn't have the same agreement as Fox and Sony.
I would guess that 'in perpetuity' means that the studios retain the purchased rights for a theoretically indefinite time so long as they continue to fulfill the terms of the contract and churn out product at the required intervals. So hypothetically if Columbia makes a new Spider-Man film once every five years (or whatever the cut-off is) for the next hundred years, they retain the rights for the next hundred years. And so on.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Exactly. The writer of the article didn't use the most accurate phrasing. It's "in perpetuity so long as they keep making sequels and/or spinoffs within contractually obligated intervals" rather than simply "in perpetuity" no matter what.
^^^^^
Now that makes more sense. I agree the writer chose the wrong word or should've laid out an explanation like above.
Now that makes more sense. I agree the writer chose the wrong word or should've laid out an explanation like above.
In the context in which these deals took place, I think they were actually quite clever. Not only do they get the immediate influx of cash from selling the rights, they encouraged these film companies to get out there and make product featuring their characters, raising the visibility of the brand, instead of just sitting on it for years on end. Not sure fifteen years ago we could have accurately predicted that comic book film adaptations would, by far, outstrip the value of the original product the way it has.
Still, I'm sure they wish now that they had thrown in a few extra clauses.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Still, I'm sure they wish now that they had thrown in a few extra clauses.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
You are correct. Marvel was in deep shit back then. They'd gone public, went on a big acquisition spree, and got seriously burned. They needed the infusion of cash to turn the company around, and they weren't much into making movies based on their properties at the time, so it probably seemed like a good idea to give up the film rights.
Here's a question... We see Marvel releasing animated movies and shows based on rights sold to other companies which I'm assuming just covers actual 'live-action' adaptions.
What happens as CG technology continues to advance? If Marvel can put out something without human actors physically appearing on the screen like Hulk vs. Wolverine
Can they do a full x-men CG movie in 5 or 10 years with superior technology making it appear almost life-like?
What happens as CG technology continues to advance? If Marvel can put out something without human actors physically appearing on the screen like Hulk vs. Wolverine
Can they do a full x-men CG movie in 5 or 10 years with superior technology making it appear almost life-like?
There's most likely no differentiation between live action and animation in the feature film rights, so Fox owns the X-Men film rights and Marvel can't make its own X-Men features regardless of the format. Marvel most likely only has the right to make animated X-Men products in the realm of direct-to-DVD and TV.
I hate to say it, but if Fox does another FF movie, I hope it bombs, leaving Fox with zero appetite to make a new one, and giving Marvel back the rights. Or should I say Disney? 
Of course, this is under the assumption that a new Fox FF film will automatically suck. Which we all know it will. And I'm not getting good vibes from that new X-Men movie, either.
Of course, this is under the assumption that a new Fox FF film will automatically suck. Which we all know it will. And I'm not getting good vibes from that new X-Men movie, either.
So that gives them the motive to churn out any old crap, in order to hang onto the rights.
Wonderful.
They can suck like a nuclear-powered Hoover and still make money. Look at how Wolverine turned out: $373M worldwide.
I wonder how much of their decision making process in the 90's was driven by the fact that it was a different climate for superhero movies than it is now. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of a successful Marvel movie prior to X-Men, followed by Spider-Man. At the time the Superman movies had run their course (and Superman IV seemed to put a stake in the franchise) and Batman seemed more the exception to the rule that superhero movies at the time were crap, than an example of how great and successful they could be.
At the time, it's not liked they were giving away the rights to a franchise which would make money even if it was considered a flop. This was during at time when no one could seem to get a Spider-Man movie off the ground and Marvel had already released disappointments like Punisher, Captain America, and Roger Corman's Fantastic Four (I'm also tempted to throw Howard the Duck in there to prove my point).
The decision appears silly when viewed with the knowledge of the Marvel movies from the past ten years (and with an eye towards the next few years), but less so when you take into account the state of super-hero movies, especially Marvel movies, at the time.
At the time, it's not liked they were giving away the rights to a franchise which would make money even if it was considered a flop. This was during at time when no one could seem to get a Spider-Man movie off the ground and Marvel had already released disappointments like Punisher, Captain America, and Roger Corman's Fantastic Four (I'm also tempted to throw Howard the Duck in there to prove my point).
The decision appears silly when viewed with the knowledge of the Marvel movies from the past ten years (and with an eye towards the next few years), but less so when you take into account the state of super-hero movies, especially Marvel movies, at the time.
Blade is usually considered to have kickstarted the current comic book movie trend. Before that, the only successful comic book movie franchises were Batman and Superman, and it didn't seem like anyone was interested in testing out other comic book properties in movie format. Blade proved you could take a rather unknown comic book and adapt it into a hit movie.
And that didn't happen until after Marvel's bankruptcy and the film rights had been sliced and diced to various other companies.
It's probably not fair to look at it as Marvel making a dumb decision or having a lack of foresight. They were bankrupt and needed money. Selling film rights that they weren't expecting to exercise probably looked like a brilliant option at the time. It's not like anybody predicted we would have this huge wave of successful comic book movies. We could have had a run of really bad ones instead and killed the entire trend in its infancy.
And that didn't happen until after Marvel's bankruptcy and the film rights had been sliced and diced to various other companies.
It's probably not fair to look at it as Marvel making a dumb decision or having a lack of foresight. They were bankrupt and needed money. Selling film rights that they weren't expecting to exercise probably looked like a brilliant option at the time. It's not like anybody predicted we would have this huge wave of successful comic book movies. We could have had a run of really bad ones instead and killed the entire trend in its infancy.
That you could take an unknown comic book and turn it into a hit had already been proven with films like The Mask and Men in Black prior to the release of Blade, and both were much bigger hits than Blade. The success of Batman did in fact inspire the studios to try out other comic book properties as movie franchises (albeit to a lesser extent than the 2000s), with widely varying results. Dick Tracy, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Crow, Timecop, The Mask, and Men in Black were hits, while The Rocketeer, The Shadow, Tank Girl, Judge Dredd, Barb Wire, The Phantom, Spawn, and Steel either underperformed or flopped.
Blade was a useful talking point for Avi Arad in selling the potential of Marvel properties, but it was by no means the first hit film made from an obscure comic book.
Ah, you are correct.
Blade just sticks out in my mind, for some reason.But my general point was that Marvel couldn't have anticipated what a huge business comic book movies would become, or that they could have massively popular multi-movie franchises from their flagship properties. Live and learn, I guess. At least they kept some of them!
Fandom typically thinks of Blade cause it was a modest hit then exploded as a cult type following on DVD. It was as Vulcan said a good talking point for Avi but not the first Marvel character 'hit'.
The Marvel character(s) that were the undisputed hit that Hollywood and the masses could stand up and recognize were indeed the X-Men.
To this day I stumble across people who still don't know Men In Black or The Crow were comic based. One guy I spoke to thought the Crow was in the vein of original horror characters like Freddy or Jason. If Timecop ever came up I'd bet few know of its comic roots and see it as 'just a sci-fi' film.
The Marvel character(s) that were the undisputed hit that Hollywood and the masses could stand up and recognize were indeed the X-Men.
To this day I stumble across people who still don't know Men In Black or The Crow were comic based. One guy I spoke to thought the Crow was in the vein of original horror characters like Freddy or Jason. If Timecop ever came up I'd bet few know of its comic roots and see it as 'just a sci-fi' film.
I see Blade as the first glimmer that comic book superheroes beyond Bats and Supes could become successful movies. Most of the pre-blade titles mentioned (Dick Tracy, The Crow, Timecop, The Mask, and Men in Black) aren't what I would think of as the traditional long-underwear crowd.
The other thing is, "Marvel Studios" as it's currently constituted was quite a bold venture when they embarked upon it. Suggesting that they should have hung on to the film rights in the 1990s on the chance that they might borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to start their own film studio at some point in the future is a pretty big hindsight thing (indeed, they would never have gotten to that point had studios not made a bunch of successful films based on franchises they licensed).