When does Marvel get its film rights back from Fox...

[Greg Cox]

Warners hasn't done much better since they only do Superman and Batman movies.

And Watchmen (no reason to discount it just because it's not DCU), and Green Lantern is coming up. And of course there are the Vertigo films.

And let's not forget CATWOMAN and STEEL.

(On second thought, maybe we should . . . .)

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Warners hasn't done much better since they only do Superman and Batman movies.

And Watchmen (no reason to discount it just because it's not DCU), and Green Lantern is coming up. And of course there are the Vertigo films.

And let's not forget CATWOMAN and STEEL.

(On second thought, maybe we should . . . .)

For what it's worth, WB has been FAR more prolific on the TV/animation side with it's characters than Marvel. I'd cite that as a counterbalance.

 

[the Dagman]

Something a little off-topic, yet related to the overall question:

FOX currently has the rights to the Fantastic Four.

A few hours ago, I heard a radio promo for tonight's episode of Fringe that described people "turning into human torches!"


Now, I am 100% certain that if FOX did not have the rights to the FF that that promo would have said "make people spontaneously combust!" But my question is: by using "human torches" in their advertising, does this prolong FOX's rights to the FF property?

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

But my question is: by using "human torches" in their advertising, does this prolong FOX's rights to the FF property?

Nope.

 

[AviTrek]

Movie Rights != TV Rights. I doubt people "turning into human torches" infringes on the copyright for "the human torch." The FF license had nothing to do with the episode/promotion.

 

[Norrin Radd]

As for the F4. I LOVED these two. So did a lot of other people. They just weren't breakout hits like many other superhero films.

I think people who have problems with F4 1&2 are expecting them to be big set-piece action epics. F4 has never been about that. It's about the F4 family, and the two films delivered THAT spot on.

The Fantastic Four isn't about "set-piece" epic action? Are you joking?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

As for the F4. I LOVED these two. So did a lot of other people. They just weren't breakout hits like many other superhero films.

I think people who have problems with F4 1&2 are expecting them to be big set-piece action epics. F4 has never been about that. It's about the F4 family, and the two films delivered THAT spot on.

The Fantastic Four isn't about "set-piece" epic action? Are you joking?

No I'm not joking. F4 HAS action scenes, but it isn't ABOUT action scenes. F4 is (not trying to sound pretentious, just descriptive) a "thinking man's" superteam. Even when they DO fight, they don't just pummel the oppostion with their powers until he submits.

The ending fight with Doom in the first film I thought was a PERFECT F4 fight. It didn't blow up half the city, or range over huge tracts of real estate. They fought SMART, using science and skill and took Doom down without most of the mass carnage that would characterize an Avengers or X-men brawl.


In addition, F4 has probably the LEAST "epic" rogues gallery in comics, bar Galactus and the Skrulls. Puppetmaster, Mole Man, et al are very down to earth, if not outright prosaic foes. Their plots and schemes inevitably center around fulfilling some immediate need of their own, rather than world-dominating villainry.

Even the feared Dr Doom, has tame ambitions compared to many Marvel foes. He wants to a) rule his "beloved" Latveria and b) conquer Reed Richards. Doom the World Beater, as he is often portrayed in other books (like Avengers) just doesn't play right.

F4's strongest suit has always been its examination of the team as individuals, and as a family. Who are they? How does a mortal, "gifted with the power of a god", deal with what his/her life becomes because of it.

F4 was PERFECTLY cast and written in that respect. I looked at the screen and I SAW Reed Richards, Sue and Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm up there.

Damn...gonna have to go pop in my dvds and watch them again...thanks Norrin!

 

[Noname Given]

As for the F4. I LOVED these two. So did a lot of other people. They just weren't breakout hits like many other superhero films.

I think people who have problems with F4 1&2 are expecting them to be big set-piece action epics. F4 has never been about that. It's about the F4 family, and the two films delivered THAT spot on.

I agree - I was an 'old school' FF fan - grew up mostly on the Stan Lee/Jack Kirby FF stories (still my favorite Superhero group); and I liked BOTH films. I think current FF fans were probably looking for the John Byrne or later FF era (I read a couple from the Byrne run, and didn't think much of them - I mean I do like Doctor Doom, but the comic was called 'Fantastic Four' ).

The two FF moves really did a good job of taking the basic characters from the Lee/Kirby era; and placing them in 'modern times'. Chiklis as 'The Thing' was spot on, Johnny Storm was right in character; and both films did the old Lee/Kirby 'Human Torch/Thing fued' perfectly. I liked both films better than either X-Men 1 or 3 (and I consider them about as good as X-Men 2).

They beat the crap out of Ang Lee's Hulk, and the Daredevil film; as well and Spider-Man 2 and 3. (My problem with 2 was the fact that it re-hashed the 'Should I or should I be Spiderman' conflict within Peter Parker from the first film, and I thought they should have already moved on from that in the sequel; plus I didn't really care for their version of 'Doc Oc').