Could someone explain the Marvel and film rights deal?

[timomcshade]

OK I know about the rotating financing but what I am curious about rights to the movies.

It is safe to assume that Sony still owns Spider-Man and Fox still owns X-Men. I know Universal is releasing Hulk but did Marvel studios make it? What about stuff like Punisher, Daredevil, Blade, Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four? Have all of those properties reverted back to Marvel?

[Expletive Deleted]

It depends on the individual deals that Marvel made back when they were licensing their properties to movie studios. I believe Sony and Fox still have licenses for Spider-Man and X-Men, but I don't know where the others stand.

[Abrojo]

Yeah i assume its quite messy since we have seen that Deadpool appears on the Wolverine movie, so his rights are gone too.

[Yaw]

I think its roughly analogous to the old school MU: Avengers world, Spidey world and X-worlds are all separate.

[Shellhead]

I think its roughly analogous to the old school MU: Avengers world, Spidey world and X-worlds are all separate.

False. Old school Marvel Universe had plenty of interaction between those characters.

Spider-Man appeared in Avengers #11. Former Avenger Black Widow guest-starred in Spider-man #86. He teamed up with various Avengers (Vision, Thor, Captain America, Iron Man) during the first 13 issues of Marvel Team-Up, plus many times after that. See Marvel Team-Up #20, 22, 26, 28, 41, 42, 48, 49, 51, 52, 57, 59, and 60 for some additional examples. Iron Man alone teamed up with Spider-man at least a half dozen times in that series.

Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch first appeared as members of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants in X-Men #4, then joined the Avengers in Avengers #16. Magneto kidnapped them back in Avengers #47, leading to a battle between the Avengers and X-Men in Avengers #53, after a clash between Quicksilver and Cyclops in X-Men #45. The Avengers fought Sentinels in Avengers #103-4, and Magneto again in Avengers #110-1. Beast joined the Avengers in Avengers #137.

Spider-man appeared in X-Men #35. Iceman guest-starred in Spider-man #92. Then Spider-man teamed up with the X-Men in Marvel Team-Up #4. Angel and Iceman also teamed up with Spider-man in Spectacular Spider-man #17-18.

Furthermore, two former Avengers (Black Widow and Hercules) and two former X-Men (Angel and Iceman) were the majority of the members of the short-lived team Champions. Still, they had a 17-issue run, plus a guest appearance in Avengers #163.

And when Magneto was finally revealed to be the father of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, it wasn't through direct exposition. Instead, an issue of the Avengers (186 or 187?) and an issue of the X-Men (122 or 125?) that came out in the same month offered separate clues that put together revealed that he was their true father.

[Paradox]

Depends on what is meant by "old school". Five years ago, ten years ago or forty years ago.
Ten years ago it was more or less divided up like Yaw said.

As to the original question, I do believe Cap, Iron Man and Thor are now all under Marvel's "umbrella" therefore hints at Avengers.

[timomcshade]

Thanks for clearing that up Expletive.

As to the original question, I do believe Cap, Iron Man and Thor are now all under Marvel's "umbrella" therefore hints at Avengers.

Yeah that is what I am trying to find out. I know the official title of the Captain America movie, or at least what I saw on a trustworthy site, was The First Avenger: Captain America. Obviously those 3 characters: IM, Cap and Thor need to be in an Avengers movie but I was trying figure out who else they could go with.

I would also like to see a NEW Daredevil made. Hulk gets a 2nd shot, we get 2 FF movies, Punisher gets 3 chances, but we only get 1 DD? What is up with that?

[DWEarhart]

That's up to 20th Century Fox. He could always crossover with a future X-related flick. Wolverine and Daredevil, as of now, is a possibility.

[Ontir]

I know the Spider-Man rights were a real mess, which is why Jim Cameron's Spider-Man movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, intended to be released in 1988 was never shot. A good deal of that has to do with the rights sale in the sixties, which allowed for the cartoons of Spider-Man, Thor, the Hulk, and Iron Man to be done by Grantway-Lawrence, while the Fantastic Four went to Hannah-Barbera.

I've heard that Marvel went though and bought back the rights to a number of their properties, I imagine in some cases deals were struck to prevent the sort of protracted litigation that would've negated the upside for anyone, to allow joint ownership, but that's a theory.

[Michael P]

Depends on what is meant by "old school". Five years ago, ten years ago or forty years ago.
Ten years ago it was more or less divided up like Yaw said.

Only in terms of the editorial teams. They were still all in the same universe.

As to the films: Any characters who weren't licensed out to studios, Marvel is free to do with as they please. As for the ones they did license, eventually those licenses will expire (just when is down to the individual contracts).

[Michael P]

they were all in the same universe but now marvel makes it so that the films before xmen and spidey came out that those movie never exists.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I was talking about how the comics were set up in the mid-late-'90s.

[Paradox]

Michael P misses the qualifier:

Only in terms of the editorial teams. They were still all in the same universe.

That's why I said "more or less". Very little crossing over, everyone "ghettoized" into their own corner. Compared to how they did things 20-40 years ago, they might as well have been in their own universes.

[The Joker]

I know the Spider-Man rights were a real mess, which is why Jim Cameron's Spider-Man movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, intended to be released in 1988 was never shot.

The Spidey rights were indeed a huge mess. I remember reading some article during the mid 1990's that Cameron was all set to direct a Spidey film slated for release in 1993 if I am not mistaken. And the studio had even released a collector's pin stating the film was to be released in '93, but it never came to pass. I've heard of a possible film being proposed during the 80's, but no idea who was being looked upon to star at that time.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I was talking about how the comics were set up in the mid-late-'90s.

He's referring to the idea that all Marvel films prior to Blade, and especially with 2000's X-Men, are essentially being ignored and in result have absolutely nothing to with this new Marvel film Universe that's very much coming to light here recently.

[Michael P]

He's referring to the idea that all Marvel films prior to Blade, and especially with 2000's X-Men, are essentially being ignored and in result have absolutely nothing to with this new Marvel film Universe that's very much coming to light here recently.

Well, that was nowhere in my original post. But really, have you seen the Dolph Lundgren Punisher flick? Everyone involved with it would rather pretend it never existed.

[stealthwise]

Thanks for clearing that up Expletive.



Yeah that is what I am trying to find out. I know the official title of the Captain America movie, or at least what I saw on a trustworthy site, was The First Avenger: Captain America. Obviously those 3 characters: IM, Cap and Thor need to be in an Avengers movie but I was trying figure out who else they could go with.


Vision, Scarlet Witch, Hawkeye?

[DWEarhart]

Well, that was nowhere in my original post. But really, have you seen the Dolph Lundgren Punisher flick? Everyone involved with it would rather pretend it never existed.

I would have to disagree. In my opinion; still the best Punisher flick as far as stoy and setting goes.

Thomas Jane did a fine job with his starring version; everything else sucked.

And Dolph rules.

[The Joker]

Well, that was nowhere in my original post. But really, have you seen the Dolph Lundgren Punisher flick? Everyone involved with it would rather pretend it never existed.
Other than probably Dolph himself. Especially in contrast to some of the other films Dolph has starred in, it's actually fairly decent. I'm sure the budget being very minimal didnt help either. But that's more often than not a given with anything starring Dolph Lundgren.

[stealthwise]

I would have to disagree. In my opinion; still the best Punisher flick as far as stoy and setting goes.

Thomas Jane did a fine job with his starring version; everything else sucked.

And Dolph rules.

It's a decent enough generic 80s action film. I don't think they did anything outstanding with it.

But the Jane version was just... wrong-headed in how they adapted Ennis's work (they should have used the MAX version anyways), and Travolta was worthless, and the CGI ending... blah.

[The Xenos]

Lemme see if I can remember the list right.

Fox
Fantastic Four & Silver Surfer
X-Men
Wolverine
Daredevil

Lionsgate
Punisher

Sony
Spider-man

Marvel Studios
Iron Man
Hulk
Thor
Captain America
Avengers
Runaways
and presumedly everything else Marvel has

[Ontir]

The Spidey rights were indeed a huge mess. I remember reading some article during the mid 1990's that Cameron was all set to direct a Spidey film slated for release in 1993 if I am not mistaken. And the studio had even released a collector's pin stating the film was to be released in '93, but it never came to pass. I've heard of a possible film being proposed during the 80's, but no idea who was being looked upon to star at that time.

I used to have a key chain which read "James Cameron's Spider-Man '88!" Actually, I still have the ring, but the plastic bit with Spidey's face and the words is long gone. I bought it for kicks from my LCS, never thinking I should just put the damn thing away, because it would be worth something later!!!

He's referring to the idea that all Marvel films prior to Blade, and especially with 2000's X-Men, are essentially being ignored and in result have absolutely nothing to with this new Marvel film Universe that's very much coming to light here recently.

I'd have to say I agree with that to a certain extent. With what Fox is holding onto, they could do a mini-MU themselves, if they could get an FF film that didn't suck, and an X-film back on track.

[StoneGold]

I know the Spider-Man rights were a real mess, which is why Jim Cameron's Spider-Man movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, intended to be released in 1988 was never shot.

You're mixing up various aborted Spider-Movies there. DiCaprio was 14 in 1988.

[timomcshade]

I used to have a key chain which read "James Cameron's Spider-Man '88!"

With what Fox is holding onto, they could do a mini-MU themselves, if they could get an FF film that didn't suck, and an X-film back on track.

I always heard that it was regular Cameron player Michael Biehn that was going to play Spider-Man. You know if anyone wants to see a good Female Marvel movie made, like say Ms. Marvel, I would give it to Cameron. Let him Direct it, the man is good, and write it as well as he is soo good with strong female characters.

Yeah Fox could do something with that. They really wouldn't need to change much as I thought the 2nd FF film was much better than the first. Keep Chris Evans and Michael Chiklis as Torch and Thing(I think they "got" it the best) but drop Doom and the actors for Sue(sorry Alba I still love you) and Reed. WIth the X-Men all they really need there is a regime change. I know one of the reasons SInger left X3 was because of clashes over the script. He wanted to go in a totally different direction. Then I know Fox got even more pissed when he started writing Superman. The biggest thing of all is to pick a Director with actual talent! No Brett Crapner, no Tim Story, no Mark Steven Johnson and please no Matthew Vaughn but for a different reason. Let me clarify that last one. I think Vaughn is an extremely talented Director but they had tapped him for 2 Marvel movies already, X-Men 3 and Thor, and both times he committed then dropped out. Which is a shame about Thor really because he could have made an awesome Thor film. Just watch Stardust.

They already have a story to pull from and that is Utimate X4 where the villian is Ultimate Thinker.


I find it very telling that Marvel is going to be successful in bringing an Avengers movie to the big screen before DC even gets JLA off the ground. I find it telling because DC is OWNED by Warners. They got Batman but for whatever reason they are messing with not doing another Superman as Singer's version was awesome. God forbid Singer adds actual depth and conflict to the Man of Steel instead of being a toal perfect boy scout...especially in today's age. OH and making the S smaller was just blasphemy. Give me a break! They also fired the best man for Wonder Woman in Joss Whedon because, and here is a wild concept, he might have actually made it good and fired the best possible screenwriter for The Flash movie, any superhero movie really, in David Goyer. For some reason DC/Warners is inept at getting that off the ground when they should have a breeze at getting it going.

I know this is a Marvel forum but if I may digress a bit one of the reasons why I read NOOO DC anymore except Batman, well Green Lantern's Sinestro Corp War was awesome, is because their characters are all outdated to me. Not one of them is allowed to have internal conflict or strife? Not one of them can be flawed? This isn't the 40's and 50's anymore. Wonder Woman has Max Lord in the Lasso of Truth and he tells her the only way to save Superman from his mind control is to kill himself. She kills Lord and Superman gets pissed because she saved his life!? Batman gets angry at her? Him of all people? Just give me a break already. OHH Batwoman and Renee Montoya are Lesbians what big deal. I mean give me a break already.

When you look at Marvel's books who isn't flawed? Daredevil and Iron Man have soo many scars, skeletons in the closet and blood on their hands it could fill the state of Texas with some runover into Oklahoma! Even Golden Boys Spider-Man and Cap have issues. Spidey makes a deal with the Devil to save an old lady who is going to die sooner rather than later instead of choosing his wife? Cap going against America and ultimately dying while his replacement was a big time assassin. The Punisher of all people trying to be Captain America. Yes I said The Punisher. Let's not even get started on Hulk, X-Men or the FF. Did I cover all the biggies? OK. That is why I make mine Marvel

OK I'm done.

[Ontir]

You're mixing up various aborted Spider-Movies there. DiCaprio was 14 in 1988.

I think that was the point. DiCaprio would begin, a teen himself, playing the teen-age Peter, and then continue on, aging as Peter aged.

[Zero Hunter]

What I have to wonder is just how much of the x-verse can Fox use now that Marvel has set up their own studio. Are they just limited to character they have already used in the previous X-movies or do they have the rights to all of them? If they only have rights to the ones already used then Marvel would be insane to let them use any new characters in the Wolverine or Magneto movie, unless it was stated somehow that the characters are still property of Marvel Studios. I mean is Marvel screwed if they ever wanted to make say a Madrox movie because he was in a little bit of X-Men 3? If something like that is the case Marvel should make Fox strip every cameo out of the Wolverine movie of character like Deadpool just in case.

Same kinda goes with Spider Man and his villians. Can Sony use any they want for Spidey 4 and 5 or can they only uses varitions of the ones they have used already, or did they gat the rights to any and all of Spideys classic bad guys.

[The Joker]

I think that was the point. DiCaprio would begin, a teen himself, playing the teen-age Peter, and then continue on, aging as Peter aged.
I always thought Dicaprio was being eyed to play Spidey during the early-mid 1990's when Cameron was on the project. I just have a very hard time seeing Dicaprio playing Parker during the 1980's. Especially considering how young he looked in "This Boy's Life" and what not back in '93/'94. Which was around the time his career really started to get on the right track.

[stealthwise]

I always thought Dicaprio was being eyed to play Spidey during the early-mid 1990's when Cameron was on the project. I just have a very hard time seeing Dicaprio playing Parker during the 1980's. Especially considering how young he looked in "This Boy's Life" and what not back in '93/'94. Which was around the time his career really started to get on the right track.

Yeah, it was 1993-94, I remember reading the rumours back in Wizard for months.

[Jared]

I never noticed it myself, but allegedly the first FF has some nods to X-Men in it, in the form of newspaper headlines and a picture of Doom with the President from X-2.

[StoneGold]

Easy way to solve this. Cameron didn't write the treatment until 1991. And he was on and off the project a few times, because I'm pretty sure the DiCaprio thing didn't come up until later. Like, not until after Titanic in 97.

http://www.teako170.com/cameron.html

[Conn Seanery]

I never noticed it myself, but allegedly the first FF has some nods to X-Men in it, in the form of newspaper headlines and a picture of Doom with the President from X-2.
Reed morphs his head to look like Wolverine in the extended version.