rjrjr Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Marvel still can't touch the FF or X-Men characters. Those that are NAMED in contracts. The contracts likely look a lot like a big list of characters regularly associated with the FF and X-franchise comics as well as a caveat of "and all associated mutants/relatives". Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch though were not NAMED characters in the contracts. They were "associated mutants" which allowed Fox to use them, but as they weren't directly named, and as they were more closely associated with the Avengers franchise, they were a special case. I guarantee that Wolverine, The Thing, Human Torch/Johnny Storm, Magneto, etc were all named characters. As Quicksilver was only on one non-X-Men X-team (X-Factor) and Scarlet Witch has never been an X-Man, they fell into a legal grey area which gave Marvel the rights to use them too, provided that they not use the 2 M-words (Mutant & Magneto). The same way that Fox was allowed to use them without ever mentioning their long-standing affiliation with the Avengers. As none of the other big characters from the FF or X franchises fall into that category except for maybe Peter Gyrich, there's not really many other grey areas. The only other big one is the Skrulls. Fox has Super Skrull. Marvel however can use the Skrull race. But since using the Super Skrull without the Skrull race is akin to using any human character without the rights to the Human race, they get the Skrull race by default. But as mentioned, since they were not specifically named, Marvel can use them. Why they have not so far is because of the very fine line between Skrull & Super Skrull. We've seen Skrulls do Super Skrull-y things and there's not really a clear delineation between them anymore (Secret Invasion being a prime example). And rather than get tied up in a court battle with Fox over it though with a judge debating the differences between a Skrull and a Super Skrull when Marvel sometimes doesn't even seem to know exactly what that line is, they've just elected to use other alien races when it's not essential to the plot that the characters be the actual Skrulls. Hence, the Chitauri in Avengers. They're the Skrulls of the Ultimate Universe, but they're not called Skrulls and not really that similar, so it's not a big deal. Plus, they were just cannon fodder anyway. But they're in the same legal grey area. It'll just probably involve a trial in front of a judge like the Toy Biz Mutant/human thing on import tariffs a decade or 2 back. Inhumans have always been associated with the FF. I wonder if Fox can use them? After this movie, Fox should have Namor be the antagonist. Followed by Skrulls. If they can get past Doctor Doom, there are lots of great villains to use in the FF movies. Edited June 12, 2015 by rjrjr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr 9.8 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Are you really looking forward to this, Bosco? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Inhumans have always been associated with the FF. I wonder if Fox can use them? After this movie, Fox should have Namor be the antagonist. Followed by Skrulls. If they can get past Doctor Doom, there are lots of great villains to use in the FF movies. Marvel likely had a specific clause that to exclude Inhumans with the FF. Or the FF contract only spells out exactly who Fox gets. Especially since unlike the Fox/X-Men deal, there aren't so many FF-related characters that naming them would be a burden. In all likelihood, since they are different contracts, the FF contract likely doesn't have the same "and all associated supporting characters & villains" clause like the X-Men contract would. You have literally millions of mutants and at least a thousand named mutant or X-related characters. That makes listing them onerous. FF though? You could probably get that done in a list of about 100-ish names. And Namor's right are still maybe kinda/sorta with Universal. There's some debate over whether they are STILL with Universal, but at the time that Marvel & Fox signed the FF deal, Namor's rights were not available to be included in the deal & likely wouldn't automatically transfer over to Fox when/if they revert from Universal just because he has a close association with the FF (and recently the X-Men) even if the FF contract does have one of those "and others" clauses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comicopolis Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Are you really looking forward to this, Bosco? I'm intrigued by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEATHLOK9147 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I'm guessing this movie is going to be really good.. Whenever a movie is underhyped and people always think the worst, it comes out descent.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 Are you really looking forward to this, Bosco? I'm intrigued by it. Same here. Where before I was expecting yet another semi-interesting Fantastic Four movie (I do like what they did with Silver Surfer in the second movie), these trailers have me looking at this differently. Even the design of The Thing is so much more 'realistic' that a big rubber suit in the shape of rocks. And I am not completely convinced Trank went off-the-rails with his directing. Especially after seeing his creative partner noting in an interview he has never seen so much hate pointed at a director like this production has involved. If he disliked Trank, or felt he failed the movie, I would assume he would say nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 Josh Trank Reveals Why He Really Left STAR WARS; Addresses FANTASTIC FOUR BTS Rumors "None of those facts were true – and any of the facts that were true were spun in such a maliciously wrong way. If you ask anybody by name who I’ve worked with, from Simon to [producer] Hutch [Parker] or my crew or anybody else, they’d be like, ‘We’ve been working really hard on this movie and we’ve had an excellent time working together.' It’s been a challenging movie – for all of the right reasons." The director then goes on to deny claims that his dogs caused $100,000 worth of damage to a property rented for him by Fox and that he recently took to 4Chan to vent his frustrations about the movie. So, why did Trank leave Star Wars? "I want to do something original after this because I’ve been living under public scrutiny, as you’ve seen, for the last four years of my life. And it’s not healthy for me right now in my life. I want to do something that’s below the radar." This could all be true or a PR move by Fox to try and help distance Fantastic Four from those reports by The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. This is Trank's take on things though. Interestingly, Simon Kinberg - the man who reportedly had Trank fired from Star Wars - was also present for this interview, and he jumped to Trank's defence. "I’ve been around some version of this for a long time. This, I would say, is particularly cruel. I haven’t really seen this level of vehemence against a filmmaker. And it’s surreal and unfair." Found it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted June 14, 2015 Author Share Posted June 14, 2015 A little more footage in 'A New Generation of Heroes' TV spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hog Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Please tell me he doesn't press a button on his wrist to flame on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davenport Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comicopolis Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Why would he need long arms to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted June 14, 2015 Author Share Posted June 14, 2015 Why would he need long arms to do that? Indoor parkour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiamSturgess Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I think the Torch actually looks and sounds really cool from the tiny, tiny bit we've seen. Johnny Storm, he ain't - but the Human Torch? Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsilverjanet Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Why would he need long arms to do that? why does Iron Man always land like this? greggy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidTheDavid Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Why would he need long arms to do that? why does Iron Man always land like this? 'Cause the ladies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comicopolis Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Why would he need long arms to do that? why does Iron Man always land like this? He hates the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Why would he need long arms to do that? Lacking core strength to lift his legs high enough to jump over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davenport Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Why would he need long arms to do that? He forgot he could become taller and just step over? Went with the gibbon-arms instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonzilla Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 The Torch does look damn cool. I'm still not going to see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
