Doctor Strange 2 announced. 7 7

[Buzzetta]

On 2/15/2022 at 10:33 PM, fantastic_four said:

 

I'm also guessing the freeze-out of Fox extended to toys since both Toy Biz and Hasbro were making movie X-Men action figures before that time period Wolverine was dead in the comics, but we didn't see new ones until after Disney had acquired Fox.  There was also never a toy freeze-out with any Sony Spider-Man movies, so whatever it was clearly was pointed specifically at Fox.

By that point Sony had flat out sold Disney back the merchandising rights for Spiderman films.  So while Sony has the rights to make the films, Disney / Marvel could profit from related merchandising.  Perlmutter would not have liked that but if you play your cards right there is a lot of money to be made from “Green suit Battle at the Beach Spiderman” figures. 
 

[Bosco685]

On 2/15/2022 at 10:33 PM, fantastic_four said:

Yea I agree.  Cancelling FF--and PARTICULARLY killing off Wolverine--seemed like cutting off your nose to spite your face and a drop in the bucket for what it would take for Fox to no longer look at X-Men as profitable.  But at the time Perlmutter did it he was no longer in charge of Marvel Studios, so he HAD to have had cooperation or possibly even a directive from above to do it for the good of Feige's Marvel Studios.  It seems likely Iger had to at minimum sign off on it.

I'm also guessing the freeze-out of Fox extended to toys since both Toy Biz and Hasbro were making movie X-Men action figures before that time period Wolverine was dead in the comics, but we didn't see new ones until after Disney had acquired Fox.  There was also never a toy freeze-out with any Sony Spider-Man movies, so whatever it was clearly was pointed specifically at Fox.

Fox and Disney had gotten in a heated negotiation over Daredevil film rights. Fox had a Joe Carnahan movie in the works (Daredevil 1973), but the rights were about to revert back to Marvel. Disney wanted the film rights back on Silver Surfer and Galactus if they renewed the Daredevil rights for Fox (supposedly they were part of Guardians of the Galaxy's original -script). But the Fox team recognized how key those two characters are to the Fantastic Four. So neither side gave in. As we know now, negotiations broke down and a war commenced between the two studios.

Part of what I have been capturing for years in this thread. Including how despite Perlmutter's attempts to disrupt Fox's productions, it moved forward with The Gifted (the X-Men TV show) and Legion. The latter being wildly successful. Along with some little known films called Logan and Deadpool.

So no. Perlmutter's attempts to lock out Fox from new characters was not such a brilliant success. If anything, it reinforced his petty image and made fans upset their comic runs had been disrupted.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

An article that outlines what took place. And how it stopped a planned Daredevil trilogy but led to Netflix's super-successful Daredevil show.

'Daredevil' Reboot Trilogy That Never Happened 

Quote

The deadline for when Marvel Studios would regain the film rights to Daredevil was now approaching fast, with Fox needing to get a movie to start principal photography by the end of August 2012 or else they’d permanently lose the film rights to Daredevil.

 

It was in these final months that Joe Carnahan, who previously directed The A-Team for 20th Century Fox, entered the picture. He had a distinct pitch for a Daredevil movie that would harken back to grimy thrillers of the 1970s and 1980s. In 2014, Carnahan went into more detail on the project by revealing that, initially, Fox just wanted him to direct a finished -script that he found to be solid in the action department but lacking elsewhere. Carnahan then decided to pitch his vision for an entire trilogy of Daredevil movies, each with a distinct flair that would evoke classic genre fare. Here's what the filmmaker said about his unmade trilogy back in 2014:

Quote

“What people don’t realize about the DD project is that the producers of the film, got to me very late. They had a -script that I read and I thought that while the action was wonderful, the story didn’t really have any additional bite. I suggested a trilogy as follows. ‘Daredevil ‘73’ ‘Daredevil ‘79’ and ‘Daredevil ‘85’ where I was going to do a kind of ‘cultural libretto’ and make the music of those eras a kind of thematic arc.

 

So the first one would be Classic Rock, the second one would be Punk Rock and the third film would be ‘New Wave.’ The problem was, the option was almost set to lapse so we made an eleventh hour bid to Marvel to retain the rights for a bit longer so I could rework the -script. Unfortunately, it just didn’t happen. Marvel wanted the rights back. I don’t blame them.”

 

[Bosco685]

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 2/15/2022 at 5:38 PM, Larryw7 said:

I would be surprised if that happens.

Let's say that I project MoM to make $1.2 million; Do you think that is too high, or $600 million would be too low for The Batman?

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 2/15/2022 at 7:09 PM, Buzzetta said:

I have a feeling that you are going to be wrong about this.  Word around we non comic geeks is that the Batman movie looks really cool. 

Could be. It was much too easy for me to get the best seats in the house for 2 showings of The Batman, though, hence my 'prediction'.

[Bosco685]

"I got a ticket. THIS MOVIE IS GOING TO FAIL!"

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 2/16/2022 at 6:43 AM, Bosco685 said:

"I got a ticket. THIS MOVIE IS GOING TO FAIL!"

I don't think you understand how quickly these 2 theaters typically sell out of opening-weekend tickets for comic book movies (not sure about other genres). I usually have to buy on Day 1 to get seats at the edge of the middle rows. The movies that are this easy to buy for usually don't end up doing special. I'm sure that $500 million is a given.

I can't really compare it to MoM because those tickets haven't gone on sale yet. The hype seems very different for both products, though. No need to get the knickers in a bunch.

Edited February 16, 2022 by theCapraAegagrus

[Bosco685]

On 2/16/2022 at 6:47 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

I don't think you understand how quickly these 2 theaters typically sell out of opening-weekend tickets for comic book movies (not sure about other genres). I usually have to buy on Day 1 to get seats at the edge of the middle rows. The movies that are this easy to buy for usually don't end up doing special. I'm sure that $500 million is a given.

I can't really compare it to MoM because those tickets haven't gone on sale yet. The hype seems very different for both products, though. No need to get the knickers in a bunch.

Think of how flawed the logic is here in comparing these two movies. No worries about my knickers.

Apply better logic.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 2/16/2022 at 6:59 AM, Bosco685 said:

Think of how flawed the logic is here in comparing these two movies. No worries about my knickers.

Apply better logic.

Tracking trends is reasonable, aka logical.

[fantastic_four]

On 2/16/2022 at 12:12 AM, Buzzetta said:

By that point Sony had flat out sold Disney back the merchandising rights for Spiderman films.  So while Sony has the rights to make the films, Disney / Marvel could profit from related merchandising.  Perlmutter would not have liked that but if you play your cards right there is a lot of money to be made from “Green suit Battle at the Beach Spiderman” figures. 

I thought Marvel sold ONLY film rights to Sony and Fox, and neither of those companies EVER had merchandising rights--am I off on that?  Both Toy Biz and Hasbro made Marvel Legends action figures for most Spidey and X-Men films aside from the 2010s when Perlmutter was freezing out Fox.

[Bosco685]

On 2/16/2022 at 7:57 AM, fantastic_four said:

I thought Marvel sold ONLY film rights to Sony and Fox, and neither of those companies EVER had merchandising rights--am I off on that?  Both Toy Biz and Hasbro made Marvel Legends action figures for most Spidey and X-Men films aside from the 2010s when Perlmutter was freezing out Fox.

Fox owned the TV rights to X-Men. Hence the two TV shows (The Gifted, Legion) and a 1992-1996 wildly popular animated show.

Sony only has the film rights. Which is outlined in the Marvel rights thread, which includes multiple credible sources.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

On 2/16/2022 at 7:56 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Tracking trends is reasonable, aka logical.

When you attempt to use them in a way to prove your long-standing proclamation Matt Reeves The Batman bad - all others good.

Prove me wrong you have not been consistently negative towards The Batman for months.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:03 AM, Bosco685 said:

When you attempt to use them in a way to prove your long-standing proclamation Matt Reeves The Batman bad - all others good.

Prove me wrong you have not been consistently negative towards The Batman for months.

It seems like you're inferring something from my post(s) that is not being conveyed nor implied.

The Batman could very well end up being the better movie and make less money. Happens all the time, dude.

[fantastic_four]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:02 AM, Bosco685 said:

Fox owned the TV rights to X-Men. Hence the two TV shows (The Gifted, Legion) and a 1992-1996 wildly popular animated show.

Sony only has the film rights. Which is outlined in the Marvel rights thread, which includes multiple credible sources.

So you're sure neither Fox nor Sony ever had merchandising rights?

There are two reasons I thought neither had merchandising rights.  One is I've just never heard that they did, but the other is what I mentioned above--Toy Biz and Hasbro were making figures for all of their films, and Toy Biz was owned by Perlmutter and Arad.  But I can't say for absolute certain that Sony and/or Fox weren't getting some cut of the profits from toys--I've just never heard that they were.

[Bosco685]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:07 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

It seems like you're inferring something from my post(s) that is not being conveyed nor implied.

The Batman could very well end up being the better movie and make less money. Happens all the time, dude.

It does, dude.

Meanwhile, who really cares about comparing the two movies that have no link logically? One is coming from an extensive franchise with links to other Marvel franchises, and the other is a fresh take on a long-running film character. Why not judge them on their own merits versus what is most probably going to turn into another stupid DC vs Marvel debate?

[Bosco685]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:08 AM, fantastic_four said:

So you're sure neither Fox nor Sony ever had merchandising rights?

There are two reasons I thought neither had merchandising rights.  One is I've just never heard that they did, but the other is what I mentioned above--Toy Biz and Hasbro were making figures for all of their films, and Toy Biz was owned by Perlmutter and Arad.  But I can't say for absolute certain that Sony and/or Fox weren't getting some cut of the profits from toys--I've just never heard that they were.

Sony owned the merchandising rights until it sold it back to Disney in late 2011 (also covered in the Marvel rights thread).

Fox never owned the merchandising rights. Marvel retained these rights, but spited itself by cutting down on an X-Men focus during the time of X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:09 AM, Bosco685 said:

Why not judge them on their own merits versus what is most probably going to turn into another stupid DC vs Marvel debate?

Jesus Christ.

You may need to take a break from this forum.

[Bosco685]

Spider-Man rights belonging to Disney/Marvel Studios

• Spider-Man (TV rights - live and animated): News Article #1.
• Spider-Man (merchandising rights): News Article #1.

Quote

Discussing Q4 2011 results, the CEO of Walt Disney, Robert A. Iger, revealed a small recent marketing transaction with Sony Pictures, who of course houses Spider-Man and his much-anticipated reboot; The Amazing Spider-Man. Evidently, there's still no cinematic connection with Disney's Marvel Studios, but could this be a step closer? Anyhow, check out the excerpt below, via Seeking Alpha, while the CEO also elaborates on the current and future success of Marvel Studios.

"Marvel's Thor and Captain America were among the top 10 non-sequel releases of the year and we are pleased with the performance of both films and the true benefits of our Marvel acquisition should be quite visible in 2012. First, in May, Thor and Captain America will join Iron Man, The Hulk and Black Widow in Marvel's The Avengers, the first Marvel film to be marketed and distributed by Disney. The Avengers shows great promise with a record 10 million downloads on iTunes when the trailer debuted, and it is well on its way to being our next great franchise. Then in July, Sony Pictures will release The Amazing Spiderman. We're excited about the film and expect it will drive significant benefits for Spiderman consumer products."

 

Division is expected to benefit next year from the release of "The Avengers" and Sony's "The Amazing Spider-Man." Disney recently brokered a new deal with the studio that enables the Mouse House to collect most of the coin from Spider-Man movie products.

 

"To that end, we recently completed a transaction with Sony Pictures to simplify our relationship. And then in the deal, we purchased Sony Pictures' participation in Spiderman merchandising, while at the same time, Sony Pictures purchased from us our participation in Spiderman films. This transaction will allow us to control and fully benefit from all Spiderman merchandising activity, while Sony will continue to produce and distribute Spiderman films. We won't be specific about the economics of this 2-way transaction, but we expect it will drive attractive returns for Disney."

 

[Bosco685]

On 2/16/2022 at 8:15 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Jesus Christ.

You may need to take a break from this forum.

Check yourself. If you read through what you have been posting about films before they come out, you may be shocked how negative your messaging is.

Not sure if this is linked to a dedication to Zack Snyder, but it is like it is on your weekly punch card to note how little you are excited for Matt Reeves' The Batman.