MARVEL FINALLY GETS EVERYTHING BACK EXCEPT SPIDERMAN???? 0

[Gatsby77]

1 hour ago, N e r V said:

Assuming they don’t get another extension it’s only going to apply to any older Disney works that would then fall into public domain based on their release date.

The characters themselves will continue to be protected from others using them in new material by those pesky trademark laws that Disney will continue to enforce.

I think a lot of people still don’t understand the differences in copyrights and trademarks.

Having older Disney material fall into public domain isn’t going to help the consumer it just means someone else other than Disney could sell you a DVD or comic book of whatever older Mickey Mouse material is now in public domain. Someone else other than Disney could make a buck off it. 

 

 

 

Partially right.

Depends on the fame (and public associations) surrounding the character, as well as the original source.

For instance, Universal made "Snow White & the Huntsman" and its sequel because it was based on the Grimm's fairy tale, not the Disney movie.

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

2 hours ago, N e r V said:

Assuming they don’t get another extension it’s only going to apply to any older Disney works that would then fall into public domain based on their release date.

The characters themselves will continue to be protected from others using them in new material by those pesky trademark laws that Disney will continue to enforce.

I think a lot of people still don’t understand the differences in copyrights and trademarks.

Having older Disney material fall into public domain isn’t going to help the consumer it just means someone else other than Disney could sell you a DVD or comic book of whatever older Mickey Mouse material is now in public domain. Someone else other than Disney could make a buck off it. 

 

 

 

What's crazy is how cheap that pubilc domain stuff is on digital. An example is I can buy the whole Sherlock Holmes cannon  for .99  on my Amazon Kindle Fire or read the good majority of Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan saga.

It's mind  boggling how cheap this public domain stuff is.

It definately would be something Disney would fight to protect to keep Mickey Mouse's ip value.

[WolverineX]

4 hours ago, reddwarf666222 said:

Speaking as a person who sponsors indie theaters this would be the worst thing that could happen. That would prevent so many theaters from showing older titles. As well as disney treats theater owners like .

Agreed.  I"m very wary of Monopolies....  the merger of the 1st and 3rd largest movie studios is a bad sign.   Look at Diamond...

[WolverineX]

3 hours ago, Knightsofold said:

I thought of this after I saw Thor Ragnarok, so I'm calling it now.

After the Infinity War and the death/end of all the Marvel Cinematic universe happens (and we're all sad/glad),

Marvel/Disney starts over with:....

You guessed it, The Fantastic Four, and just like in the Silver Age of comics, some of the heroes from the "Golden Age" (the Infinity war Universe) will be brought back/have guest appearances. 

Boom!

Interesting... are they going to hire Liefeld once they get to the modern age movies?

[N e r V]

3 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

Partially right.

Depends on the fame (and public associations) surrounding the character, as well as the original source.

For instance, Universal made "Snow White & the Huntsman" and its sequel because it was based on the Grimm's fairy tale, not the Disney movie.

 

Yes but that’s a case of Disney using a already preexisting work for their own version and not an original work like Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck.

[N e r V]

1 hour ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

What's crazy is how cheap that pubilc domain stuff is on digital. An example is I can buy the whole Sherlock Holmes cannon  for .99  on my Amazon Kindle Fire or read the good majority of Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan saga.

It's mind  boggling how cheap this public domain stuff is.

It definately would be something Disney would fight to protect to keep Mickey Mouse's ip value.

A lot of public domain movies vary greatly in quality. Part of the problem with public domain in movies is there is little incentive to restore a work if you don’t or can’t own the rights. This has been discussed for years on classic movie forums that so many  movies have been left out in the cold due to lack of interest for restoration. The few that do are a drop in the bucket.

Disney would still own all the original or best prints so even if someone else wanted to release a 1928 Mickey Mouse cartoon they would be left using whatever dupe prints are out there. 

Maybe that would’ve Disney’s best marketing position if any public domain happens.

[N e r V]

In the end I understand Disney’s desire for complete control of their past works but I never understood people that think that really old Disney works going to public domain is a super big deal for the public.

I think many people still don’t understand the difference in copyrights and trademarks and somehow believe that Disney and others works going into public domain means they or someone else can create new Mickey Mouse or Superman works without the owners permission. That’s not going to happen.

It just means you can use some super old material without their permission if you want to reprint it or release it on DVD, etc.

Big deal.

[Bosco685]

 

[chrisco37]

Big news.  Maybe we'll finally get that animated FF movie I've been clamoring for all these years. 

[Callaway29]

4 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

 

What is this? Fan made?

[Bosco685]

3 hours ago, Callaway29 said:

What is this? Fan made?

 

Fan-made. But a very skilled and excited fan nonetheless.

 

[Callaway29]

I just recalled a quote from Feige back in June: "“[We have] no plans with the Fantastic Four right now. No discussions about it.” Hmmmm.....

PS: There are two threads, on this subject, in this sub-forum. Hoping one becomes the clear winner so we can have a consolidated conversation...I'm rolling with this one since it hit the board 1min earlier...

[Bosco685]

11 minutes ago, Callaway29 said:

PS: There are two threads, on this subject, in this sub-forum. Hoping one becomes the clear winner so we can have a consolidated conversation...I'm rolling with this one since it hit the board 1min earlier...

Both have some good discussion going. I wonder if they can be consolidated?

[NewEnglandGothic]

21 hours ago, N e r V said:

A lot of public domain movies vary greatly in quality. Part of the problem with public domain in movies is there is little incentive to restore a work if you don’t or can’t own the rights. This has been discussed for years on classic movie forums that so many  movies have been left out in the cold due to lack of interest for restoration. The few that do are a drop in the bucket.

That's my big issue with the early Hitchcock movies stateside. Most of those 20 Hitchcock movie sets they sell are absolute garbage if it's not from its original source. I'm hoping Criterion does Blackmail soon. But you're right. There's no money in it.

At least a lot of the Sherlock Holmes have been done from 35 mm sources now. I'll probably start picking away on those soon.

[fantastic_four]

Since Disney first approached Fox on this, one would assume that the talks went like this:

• Disney:  How much do you want?
• Fox:  All the money.
• Disney:  No, really.
• Fox:  Ok...all the money, but you get to keep a smidgen of the money.
• Disney:  OK, we'll get back to you when you're feeling more sober.

The real news is that Fox took this meeting at all.  Were they really looking to sell for some reason, or were they just hoping to bend Disney over in a historic way?    If they do have some issue compelling them to make that sale, then the talks will eventually resume once both sides get to a number south of the unrealistic one Fox most likely gave them this week.

Edited November 9, 2017 by fantastic_four

[fantastic_four]

It's interesting to think about how much those rights are worth.  That's an exceedingly complex number to come up with.

One thing you have to evaluate is how long will the superhero movie gravy train last.  If superheroes are the modern-day movie equivalent of Westerns, then Westerns lasted from the beginning of film (earliest Western was the 1903 film "The Great Train Robbery") all the way through the 1960s.  And if film had been around for 200 years before the 20th century, one would assume they would have been popular throughout that time as well for one overriding reason--stories about heroic acts are immortal.  They've been with us throughout the history of literature and media, with the most famous examples throughout the millennia being the Illiad, Odyssey, Beowulf, or the Arthur legend.  If history is a guide, heroic archetypes will be with us forever--but that doesn't guarantee superhero films will last forever.  But something like them will endure, it just might not be superheroes.

Technology killed westerns and relegated the genre to the quaintness of history, and that same technology is what gave birth to superheroes.  What form of the heroic myth could supplant superheroes?  Nothing I can see for now.  Their appeal will likely be eclipsed at some point in the indefinite future by some genre that's difficult or impossible to predict, but there's nothing visible on the horizon.  Superhero films being viable for decades to come is a conservative estimate; the real number could end up being centuries.

So whatever the number is that Fox should get, it is likely a large one.  Disney bought Marvel for $4 billion and Lucasfilm's properties for $4 billion.  Maybe Fox asked for that same amount, although if they were never serious about it I could see them asking for $10 billion or more.  I imagine I'd put a price of about $2 billion to $3 billion if we assume the X-Men is worth more than the combined worth of the rest of Marvel's library.  Certainly the history of the market for the X-Men puts the value of it and Spider-Man well above anything else Marvel has ever produced, notwithstanding the increased value of the Avengers, etc instilled by the outstanding success of all the Marvel Studio movies over the past decade.

But I bet Disney has to cough up another $4 billion minimum to get the rights to X-Men or Spider-Man back.  And unless Fox or Sony get into financial trouble I bet they hold out for something closer to $10 billion.

Edited November 9, 2017 by fantastic_four

[Chip Cataldo]

I think the price will be determined mostly by other stuff in the package. The Simpsons alone is worth more than the X-Men, for instance. 

[fantastic_four]

11 minutes ago, Chip Cataldo said:

I think the price will be determined mostly by other stuff in the package. The Simpsons alone is worth more than the X-Men, for instance. 

Are they a part of it?  All I heard is that the Fox and Fox News networks would still be owned by Fox, so I assumed the Simpsons would stay since it airs on the Fox network.

If they're not a part of it, you're right that putting a price on the properties beyond X-Men and FF is key, and I was only really thinking about the X-Men in valuing them at $2 to $3 billion with Fox most likely going for $4 to $10 billion.  What would have been the biggest properties besides the Marvel ones?

Edited November 9, 2017 by fantastic_four

[Chip Cataldo]

 In the other thread it was listed. All the Fox Entertainment properties, including Modern Family, Simpsons, etc.  Disney is pursuing this to bolster their streaming content. Everything else is a nice bonus, like Aliens, Star Wars : A New Hope, FF, X-Men, etc.

[N e r V]

5 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

Since Disney first approached Fox on this, one would assume that the talks went like this:

• Disney:  How much do you want?
• Fox:  All the money.
• Disney:  No, really.
• Fox:  Ok...all the money, but you get to keep a smidgen of the money.
• Disney:  OK, we'll get back to you when you're feeling more sober.

The real news is that Fox took this meeting at all.  Were they really looking to sell for some reason, or were they just hoping to bend Disney over in a historic way?    If they do have some issue compelling them to make that sale, then the talks will eventually resume once both sides get to a number south of the unrealistic one Fox most likely gave them this week.

 

 

According to CNBC’s sources, should a deal be made, Disney would not purchase all of 21st Century Fox, which currently includes the Fox Entertainment Group (which owns both the Fox film studio and Fox television network), plus the pan-Asian pay channel operator Star TV. Per sources, Disney would not buy the television network, any sports programming assets, or the Fox News and Business channels. CNBC also notes that Disney would also not purchase Fox’s local broadcasting affiliates.

 

Instead, the interest seems to be most focused on Fox’s original production assets: movie studio, TV production, and various international assets (CNBC adds that they would buy some of the channels, including FX and National Geographic).

CNBC reports that Fox’s “willingness to engage in sale talks with Disney stems from a growing belief among its senior management that scale in media is of immediate importance…The company is said to believe that a more tightly group of properties around news and sports could compete more effectively in the current marketplace.” With the studios sold off, they might be more able to do just that, assembling more assets around the TV channels that Disney isn’t interested — or, given antirust laws, able — to purchase.

Disney’s attraction to the deal reportedly lies in the “opportunity to take control of another movie studio and significant TV production assets” as they prepare to roll out their own streaming platform, one that will serve as the exclusive online home of all Disney movies (including the “Star Wars” and Marvel franchises) and also a sports-centric arm. The deal would also bring various Marvel properties under the same banner — Fox still owns X-Men — and would likely allow various Disney theme parks to include attractions related to some of Fox’s splashiest properties, like “Alien” and, yup, even “Avatar.”