MCU's FANTASTIC FOUR (TBD) 8 8

[Bosco685]

On 12/16/2023 at 7:47 AM, Prince Namor said:

No, I didn't agree they 'waged a campaign', slugger. A whole page back, if you actually read anything instead of just waiting for your turn to type, I agreed that Perlmutter wanted to cancel the book and toys and wasn't interested in doing the work for FOX - because the book wasn't selling.

THAT IS A FACT. The book deserved to be canceled on the merit of its FAILURE to sell. I doubt FOX cared.

The 28,000 people who bought the turd wouldn't make a difference in how bad the movie bombed.

The toys? Yeah, that probably annoyed them. Disney has all the responsibility and FOX gets half the profits. 

But ultimately... Comic Books and toys don't sell movies. 

The last Barbie comics was what, 4 years ago? Barbie has been around maybe 2 years longer than the Fantastic Four?

Killed it at the box office.

Why? Because they made a GOOD MOVIE.

Sorry, zippy... you haven't PROVEN anything.

 

See. When people bring facts - you bring overly wordy distractions blended with comic book numbers. As if that was proving anything associated with the topic. You are twisting what the original intent was concerning: Ike Perlmutter/Marvel Entertainment attempted to disrupt Fox Studios and its Marvel properties plans. All going back to the 2012 Daredevil/Silver Surfer & Galactus negotiations.

You can call me 'zippy' or throw out any distractions you want. Meanwhile, more than myself provided the facts how merchandising and comic book books were being cancelled to support Perlmutter's attempts. At least those can read beyond their own self-centered assumptions can read that for themselves.

On 12/14/2023 at 2:39 PM, Bosco685 said:

Even at that time Ike Perlmutter/Marvel Entertainment was pulling back on releasing action figures and statues associated with X-Men and Fantastic Four.

BLEEDING COOL (2015): Marvel Withdraws X-Men And Fantastic Four License From XM Studios, In Mid Sculpt

 

 

 

 

On 12/15/2023 at 5:24 AM, Bosco685 said:

Fact #4

X-Men Comics Writer Blames Movie Rights Deals For The Downfall Of X-Men Comics (2016)

Chris Claremont even noted Marvel Entertainment was under-marketing its X-Men comics and allowing the titles to dry up to avoid interest or growth in Fox Studios' Marvel properties. Pointing to just low sales ignores the fact why they were low on titles that for decades were extremely popular and promoted. It was purposeful sabotage to spite a rival studio.

To which differing views will state "Of course - why would Marvel promote competing interests?" Which misses the point of root cause for those low title sales - Marvel was purposely allowing the titles to dry up through lack of promotion and limiting new characters to drive fresh interest.

 

Oh, and another writer confirmed the same as well.

X-Men Writer Confirms Marvel Banned Big Stories to Spite Fox

Quote

Comic book writer Jonathan Hickman, the man behind the latest X-Men relaunch in the comics, has confirmed Marvel stopped major X-Men stories being told because of Fox. The X-Men have long been considered one of Marvel's biggest franchises, but in the comics at least that seemed to change after 2010. Coming out of their latest near-genocide plot, Marvel's merry mutants increasingly felt sidelined by readers, and for a time even merchandise seemed to dry up.

 

Readers began to believe the problem was an absurd one, with Marvel choosing not to promote the X-Men simply because a rival studio - Fox - owned the film rights. The idea seemed to be an odd one, because it made absolutely no business sense at all; Marvel really should have gone by the principle of "a rising tide raises all boats," taking advantage of Fox's movies to boost its own comics. But the evidence built up over the years, and was supported as revelations emerged of just how petty Marvel Entertainment's CEO Ike Perlmutter seems willing to be. The crisis in X-Men comics is long over now, of course; Disney purchased the film rights to the X-Men when it acquired the bulk of Fox's film and TV empire, while Perlmutter's influence has diminished radically due to his ill-advised conflict with Kevin Feige. Superstar comic book writer Jonathan Hickman headed up a popular relaunch of the X-Men comics in 2019, revolutionizing the entire range, and they're almost as big as they were during the '90s again.

 

As Hickman departs following X-Men: Inferno, he conducted an end-of-run interview with the podcast Jay & Miles X-Plain the X-Men. In it, he explains he'd been a lifelong X-Men fan - they were the one book he followed throughout his childhood, drawn into their complexity and deep characterization. When he joined Marvel, he hoped to write the X-Men, and continually pitched for the chance to take over the franchise - but was regularly turned down. He actually left Marvel for a time, disappointed that he'd never written X-Men, but upon his return he realized things had changed. "The Fox deal had been done," he recalled in a matter-of-fact manner, "so we could do X-stuff again." This is the first real time there's been official confirmation that the Fox movies led to Marvel sidelining the X-Men - coming from the man who's been heading the entire line for two years, no less.

Like was noted by two other members, once Disney acquired Fox Studios all of a sudden X-Men was back in business again. Before then - Perlmutter and his team were blocking content for years.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Bosco685

[TupennyConan]

All that effort. All that money. & what's the first thing Disney does with Prof X & Reed Richards? Humiliates them in DS:MOM.     

[Prince Namor]

On 12/16/2023 at 8:00 PM, Bosco685 said:

See. When people bring facts - you bring overly wordy distractions blended with comic book numbers. As if that was proving anything associated with the topic. You are twisting what the original intent was concerning: Ike Perlmutter/Marvel Entertainment attempted to disrupt Fox Studios and its Marvel properties plans. All going back to the 2012 Daredevil/Silver Surfer & Galactus negotiations.

You can call me 'zippy' or throw out any distractions you want. Meanwhile, more than myself provided the facts how merchandising and comic book books were being cancelled to support Perlmutter's attempts. At least those can read beyond their own self-centered assumptions can read that for themselves.

No one is disputing that they canceled those things.

On 12/16/2023 at 8:00 PM, Bosco685 said:

Oh, and another writer confirmed the same as well.

X-Men Writer Confirms Marvel Banned Big Stories to Spite Fox

Like was noted by two other members, once Disney acquired Fox Studios all of a sudden X-Men was back in business again. Before then - Perlmutter and his team were blocking content for years.

Right... because they didn't want to give free content to their competition to make movies with that THEY may want to use later... how is that a big revelation?

Why didn't they just cancel the X-Men comics? Because they SOLD well enough to keep printing.

Why didn't they keep printing the FF comic and just limit the content? Because it didn't SELL.

That proves... that part of the decision to not print the comic had to do with sales.

Limiting content - had to do with not wanting to give away valuable and profitable ideas. Who WOULD do that?

No one. 

[Prince Namor]

On 12/16/2023 at 8:42 PM, TupennyConan said:

All that effort. All that money. & what's the first thing Disney does with Prof X & Reed Richards? Humiliates them in DS:MOM.     

Those weren't the actual Earth.. 1 or whatever they call it version though, right?

[TupennyConan]

On 12/16/2023 at 9:39 AM, Prince Namor said:

Those weren't the actual Earth.. 1 or whatever they call it version though, right?

I think the answer is correct. I still stand by my indignation!  

[Bosco685]

On 12/16/2023 at 9:37 AM, Prince Namor said:

No one is disputing that they canceled those things.

Right... because they didn't want to give free content to their competition to make movies with that THEY may want to use later... how is that a big revelation?

Why didn't they just cancel the X-Men comics? Because they SOLD well enough to keep printing.

Why didn't they keep printing the FF comic and just limit the content? Because it didn't SELL.

That proves... that part of the decision to not print the comic had to do with sales.

Limiting content - had to do with not wanting to give away valuable and profitable ideas. Who WOULD do that?

No one. 

I guess you. Because you implied the only reason the books were cancelled over sales. Yet Jonathan Hickman confirmed it was years of comic book sabotage to spite Fox Studios promotion and character use.

Seriously. You called out Roy. But this is a new level of disingenuous mindset to ignore facts.

Too bad.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/16/2023 at 11:02 PM, Bosco685 said:

I guess you. Because you implied the only reason the books were cancelled over sales.

No. I didn't say the ONLY reason. That's incorrect. Get your facts straight. I'm 100% sure, without having the actual factual information, that Ike didn't want to do anything to benefit FOX. 

But he canceled the FF book that no one was reading anyway, and continued to publish the X-Men because it was still selling ok. The SAME decision he would've made without all of this going on.

On 12/16/2023 at 11:02 PM, Bosco685 said:

Yet Jonathan Hickman confirmed it was years of comic book sabotage to spite Fox Studios promotion and character use.

Hickman is welcome to his opinion as well - but he doesn't make those decisions on the corporate level. 

And 'sabotage'? LOL. That's a stretch.

On 12/16/2023 at 11:02 PM, Bosco685 said:

Seriously. You called out Roy. But this is a new level of disingenuous mindset to ignore facts.

Too bad.

No it isn't. You just have trouble understanding anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest.

Too bad.

 

[Bosco685]

On 12/16/2023 at 1:40 PM, Prince Namor said:

No. I didn't say the ONLY reason. That's incorrect. Get your facts straight. I'm 100% sure, without having the actual factual information, that Ike didn't want to do anything to benefit FOX. 

I'm 100% sure you changed your facts repeatedly. But initially kept laughing at any facts related to Ike Pelmutter/Marvel Entertainment sabotaged their own comics to spite Fox. 100%.

On 12/16/2023 at 1:40 PM, Prince Namor said:

But he canceled the FF book that no one was reading anyway, and continued to publish the X-Men because it was still selling ok. The SAME decision he would've made without all of this going on.

Uh-huh.

On 12/16/2023 at 1:40 PM, Prince Namor said:

Hickman is welcome to his opinion as well - but he doesn't make those decisions on the corporate level. 

The guy working within Marvel Entertainment knew less than you. Yup. Disingenuous. How dare he share facts to your assumptions and wild opinions.

On 12/16/2023 at 1:40 PM, Prince Namor said:

And 'sabotage'? LOL. That's a stretch.

Hickman made it clear Marvel Entertainment was purposely keeping him away from the books, along with others. But what he failed to do is check with you first (the "facts guy").

On 12/16/2023 at 1:40 PM, Prince Namor said:

No it isn't. You just have trouble understanding anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest.

There was no 'slightest' with you. Including calling me 'Zippy' as if that meant something. You claimed the comics were cancelled due to lack of interest. I and others shared how there was a real ban going on in the company. You initially said that wasn't the case, and proceeded to post comic book counts as if that addressed root cause (Marvel Entertainment purposely letting those title flounder). Then you finally gave in when Buzz and Fantastic Four shared their merchandising knowledge how yes - there really was a Marvel ban at least in the toys line including Lego sets. And I had already posted the in-production X-Men diorama statue set that right before release Marvel withdrew the rights.

On 12/16/2023 at 1:40 PM, Prince Namor said:

Too bad.

It is too bad. Your ego was bruised because rather than listen and learn you assumed you knew everything. To include laughing at the actual facts Marvel Entertainment was cancelling and blocking merchandising and promotions.

That is sad. Too bad for you.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

Now back to facts: How Marvel Entertainment purposely sabotaged its own comics, but then later on was lifted once Disney purchased Fox Studios.

X-Men Writer Confirms Marvel Banned Big Stories to Spite Fox

Quote

Comic book writer Jonathan Hickman, the man behind the latest X-Men relaunch in the comics, has confirmed Marvel stopped major X-Men stories being told because of Fox. The X-Men have long been considered one of Marvel's biggest franchises, but in the comics at least that seemed to change after 2010. Coming out of their latest near-genocide plot, Marvel's merry mutants increasingly felt sidelined by readers, and for a time even merchandise seemed to dry up.

Quote

Readers began to believe the problem was an absurd one, with Marvel choosing not to promote the X-Men simply because a rival studio - Fox - owned the film rights. The idea seemed to be an odd one, because it made absolutely no business sense at all; Marvel really should have gone by the principle of "a rising tide raises all boats," taking advantage of Fox's movies to boost its own comics. But the evidence built up over the years, and was supported as revelations emerged of just how petty Marvel Entertainment's CEO Ike Perlmutter seems willing to be. The crisis in X-Men comics is long over now, of course; Disney purchased the film rights to the X-Men when it acquired the bulk of Fox's film and TV empire, while Perlmutter's influence has diminished radically due to his ill-advised conflict with Kevin Feige. Superstar comic book writer Jonathan Hickman headed up a popular relaunch of the X-Men comics in 2019, revolutionizing the entire range, and they're almost as big as they were during the '90s again.

Quote

As Hickman departs following X-Men: Inferno, he conducted an end-of-run interview with the podcast Jay & Miles X-Plain the X-Men. In it, he explains he'd been a lifelong X-Men fan - they were the one book he followed throughout his childhood, drawn into their complexity and deep characterization. When he joined Marvel, he hoped to write the X-Men, and continually pitched for the chance to take over the franchise - but was regularly turned down. He actually left Marvel for a time, disappointed that he'd never written X-Men, but upon his return he realized things had changed. "The Fox deal had been done," he recalled in a matter-of-fact manner, "so we could do X-stuff again." This is the first real time there's been official confirmation that the Fox movies led to Marvel sidelining the X-Men - coming from the man who's been heading the entire line for two years, no less.

Quote

Perlmutter began his career working in toy companies, and his focus was always upon trying to find opportunities to merchandize franchises. This was one major reason Marvel sold its film rights to different companies in the '90s in the first place, and it planned to synergize the release of Fox's first X-Men film with a number of action figures. Fox changed the release date late in the day, though, meaning Marvel lost that chance to create a synergy; according to film historian Ben Fritz, Perlmutter never forgot this, and indeed it was one major reason he decided to greenlight the idea of Marvel making its own movies. Marvel decided to focus on Iron Man after convening focus groups of children to ask which superhero action figures they'd be most interested in - and the rest is history. Unfortunately the emphasis on synergy appears to have worked against the X-Men line, in what feels like a shockingly petty approach to business.

 

[CAHokie]

Soooo…. Any cool news about the actual movie?

[Bosco685]

Emergency Awesome summarized all the hints so far

 

[Prince Namor]

On 12/17/2023 at 2:04 AM, Bosco685 said:

I'm 100% sure you changed your facts repeatedly. But initially kept laughing at any facts related to Ike Pelmutter/Marvel Entertainment sabotaged their own comics to spite Fox. 100%.

1. Actually, I ASKED A QUESTION. "Or it could have been as simple as the book was not selling? Because it wasn't."

 And then proceed to show my reasons for thinking it. (With statistics)

Buzz and FF answered it. You, of course, get hostile with anyone who doesn't agree with you.

2. I reminded everyone how BAD a movie the FF was. And QUESTIONED if THAT was why it failed. (I know that hurts you - you've defended that turd since it originally was scheduled to come out, and most people here weren't interested in seeing it.)

3. Again, I asked a question - "Why would canceling the comic book make a difference? It was selling 28,000 copies a month."

4. When FF clarified some things, I clarified my position: "I’m not saying it wasn’t A reason. I’m just not so sure the reason was to make the FF film fail at ALL COSTS using Biblical Proportion tactics as expressed by some."

I then asked MORE QUESTIONS: (I put it in spoilers to cut down on the length of the post)

Spoiler

"Why was Marvel printing so many X-Men comics when X-Men: Apocalypse was coming out?"

"If there were no new X-Men characters created during this time, wouldn’t that make good BUSINESS sense for Marvel?"

and pointed out other inconsistencies:

 

"The Old Man Logan series, and All-New Wolverine (featuring X-23) would run through 2018 - sticking around long enough to promote the Logan film featuring… Old Man Logan and X-23."

"Why didn’t Marvel cancel that series? Why weren't they trying to 'destroy' (as some people put it) THAT movie?"

"For that matter, why were there SO many Deadpool comics, when Fox owned the rights to it? SO MANY DEADPOOL COMICS. Why did Marvel continue to publish those? (The answer is: because they sold. That seems to be the priority here)."

 

Then YOU posted:

"Not to worry. Someone may post four to five paragraph of 'facts' blended in with real publication details. Ignoring all the real facts such as the cancelled statues that were ready to go, cancelling comic books and then mocking studio productions via their source of influence - comic books."

Then of course Roy followed that up with making it all about HIM, and people are following HIM, and poor, poor HIM.

 

The FF movie didn't fail because there were no comic books and statues. That's absurd.

The FF movie failed because it sucked. Plain and simple. 

What Ike did, made good business sense. 

The Fantastic Four when rebooted - after the Disney/Fox agreement:

after 12 issues: 46,196 - they continue to publish.

After that there's no more numbers.

 

 

So we'll just agree to disagree on two points really.

1. The FF movie failed because it SUCKED, not because there were no comics or statues.

2. That what Disney/Ike did wasn't 'Sabo-TAGE of biblical proportions', but mostly common business sense to NOT give away IP to other companies.

 

Good Day.

Edited December 17, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

On 12/17/2023 at 4:32 AM, Bosco685 said:

Emergency Awesome summarized all the hints so far

 

"One of their early villains in the original comic book run..."

Galactus didn't show up until issue #48.

If it's true that the first movie will focus on Galactus, I think that's a bad choice. Where do you go from there? How do you top that?

[Bosco685]

On 12/16/2023 at 7:48 PM, Prince Namor said:

1. Actually, I ASKED A QUESTION. "Or it could have been as simple as the book was not selling? Because it wasn't."

 And then proceed to show my reasons for thinking it. (With statistics)

Buzz and FF answered it. You, of course, get hostile with anyone who doesn't agree with you.

2. I reminded everyone how BAD a movie the FF was. And QUESTIONED if THAT was why it failed. (I know that hurts you - you've defended that turd since it originally was scheduled to come out, and most people here weren't interested in seeing it.)

3. Again, I asked a question - "Why would canceling the comic book make a difference? It was selling 28,000 copies a month."

4. When FF clarified some things, I clarified my position: "I’m not saying it wasn’t A reason. I’m just not so sure the reason was to make the FF film fail at ALL COSTS using Biblical Proportion tactics as expressed by some."

I then asked MORE QUESTIONS: (I put it in spoilers to cut down on the length of the post)

  Reveal hidden contents

"Why was Marvel printing so many X-Men comics when X-Men: Apocalypse was coming out?"

"If there were no new X-Men characters created during this time, wouldn’t that make good BUSINESS sense for Marvel?"

and pointed out other inconsistencies:

 

"The Old Man Logan series, and All-New Wolverine (featuring X-23) would run through 2018 - sticking around long enough to promote the Logan film featuring… Old Man Logan and X-23."

"Why didn’t Marvel cancel that series? Why weren't they trying to 'destroy' (as some people put it) THAT movie?"

"For that matter, why were there SO many Deadpool comics, when Fox owned the rights to it? SO MANY DEADPOOL COMICS. Why did Marvel continue to publish those? (The answer is: because they sold. That seems to be the priority here)."

 

Then YOU posted:

"Not to worry. Someone may post four to five paragraph of 'facts' blended in with real publication details. Ignoring all the real facts such as the cancelled statues that were ready to go, cancelling comic books and then mocking studio productions via their source of influence - comic books."

Then of course Roy followed that up with making it all about HIM, and people are following HIM, and poor, poor HIM.

 

The FF movie didn't fail because there were no comic books and statues. That's absurd.

The FF movie failed because it sucked. Plain and simple. 

What Ike did, made good business sense. 

The Fantastic Four when rebooted - after the Disney/Fox agreement:

after 12 issues: 46,196 - they continue to publish.

After that there's no more numbers.

 

 

So we'll just agree to disagree on two points really.

1. The FF movie failed because it SUCKED, not because there were no comics or statues.

2. That what Disney/Ike did wasn't 'Sabo-TAGE of biblical proportions', but mostly common business sense to NOT give away IP to other companies.

 

Good Day.

Nobody ever implied Perlmutter having the Fantastic Four merchandising and comic books cancelled had an impact. That was your assumption (and incorrect at that).

'Sabotage of biblical proportions" - not sure who you are directing that at. But okay. You talked this topic around in circles.

[Bosco685]

Now back to the topic...

 

[VintageComics]

On 12/16/2023 at 11:02 AM, Bosco685 said:

I guess you. Because you implied the only reason the books were cancelled over sales. Yet Jonathan Hickman confirmed it was years of comic book sabotage to spite Fox Studios promotion and character use.

Seriously. You called out Roy. But this is a new level of disingenuous mindset to ignore facts.

Too bad.

Everything you stated has stayed on point, germane to the discussion and within the goal posts.

I'm so glad you see it. It just continues to go in circles and normal discussion is truly impossible, which is why I stopped responding. 

Thanks for bringing up all of those points. I learned a lot from you about the Marvel / Disney / Fox battle and it has just strengthened my beliefs in the points I've been making.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/17/2023 at 8:15 AM, Bosco685 said:

Nobody ever implied Perlmutter having the Fantastic Four merchandising and comic books cancelled had an impact. That was your assumption (and incorrect at that).

What? Do you read your own forum?

Roy said it in the FIRST post I responded to: Posted Thursday 8:26 am

As I pointed out in another thread too, Disney / Marvel was absolutely trying to kill the Fantastic Four movie franchise by purposefully cancelling the comic book in 2014 just before the release of the Trank movie. 

On 12/17/2023 at 8:15 AM, Bosco685 said:

'Sabotage of biblical proportions" - not sure who you are directing that at. But okay. You talked this topic around in circles.

It WASN'T in circles. YOU weren't paying attention because you ASSUMED what my point was instead of straight out asking.

I ASKED a lot of questions in the thread. YOU were the one playing games with it and then assuming you already knew where I was going with it.

 

This started because Roy used THIS language:

Disney / Marvel was absolutely trying to kill the Fantastic Four movie franchise

Disney and Marvel worked VERY HARD to destroy the franchise

There was, quite literally, a corporate war going on of Biblical proportions over that franchise. 

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there was even more corporate espionage than we've uncovered

I QUOTED THAT POST and responded with: 

Or it could have been as simple as the book was not selling. Because it wasn't.

Buzz and FF and EastEnd1 gave their viewpoints and I AGREED.

Afterwards the FIRST LINE of my response is:

I’m not saying it wasn’t A reason. I’m just not so sure the reason was to make the FF film fail at ALL COSTS using Biblical Proportion tactics as expressed by some.

Then I bring it up in my next post - AGREEING that something WAS done - but questioning why it wouldn't be considered standard business:

Why would you publish something, that doesn't SELL for you, to promote someone who has the movie rights to it that you make no money from? What business operates like that?

It's VERY CLEAR that from the beginning I accepted that Ike/Disney/Marvel made some moves that didn't favor FOX. I questioned, if it was, as ROY put it 'working very hard to DESTROY the franchise in a corporate WAR of BIBLICAL proportions.'

Yes, I accept YOUR points that other people SAY it was - and that Jonathan Hickman, a respected writer for Marvel and the X-Men SAYS it was - but that doesn't mean I have to ACCEPT what they say as the gospel truth.

I still have yet to see a single thing that Marvel/Disney/Ike did that would actually HURT the movie.

Sorry, I will never believe canceling a COMIC BOOK - would have ANY effect on the movie. And a statue? Pfft.

Never seen a situation of any sort in my life - and I even owned two comic book stores in my life - where someone said, "I can't buy a statue? I'm not seeing the movie!"

The FF movie failed because of the cluster of nonsense surrounding production, the mismanagement of FOX studios, and... that it's not a very good movie. Plain and simple as that.

And I guess I'll have to make this clear for you - That DOESN'T mean I believe that Disney/Marvel/Ike didn't TRY to do something or make business moves that FAVORED them that could be SEEN by some as trying to disrupt FOX's plans. I just have yet to see anything that would make me think it had any effect at all. 

[Aman619]

the real reason FF was cancelled was to get back at Kirby! It's all about how to diminish Kirby and pump up Stan!   THER, I said it!  

[Bosco685]

On 12/16/2023 at 11:12 PM, Prince Namor said:

What? Do you read your own forum?

Spoiler

Roy said it in the FIRST post I responded to: Posted Thursday 8:26 am

As I pointed out in another thread too, Disney / Marvel was absolutely trying to kill the Fantastic Four movie franchise by purposefully cancelling the comic book in 2014 just before the release of the Trank movie. 

It WASN'T in circles. YOU weren't paying attention because you ASSUMED what my point was instead of straight out asking.

I ASKED a lot of questions in the thread. YOU were the one playing games with it and then assuming you already knew where I was going with it.

 

This started because Roy used THIS language:

Disney / Marvel was absolutely trying to kill the Fantastic Four movie franchise

Disney and Marvel worked VERY HARD to destroy the franchise

There was, quite literally, a corporate war going on of Biblical proportions over that franchise. 

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there was even more corporate espionage than we've uncovered

I QUOTED THAT POST and responded with: 

Or it could have been as simple as the book was not selling. Because it wasn't.

Buzz and FF and EastEnd1 gave their viewpoints and I AGREED.

Afterwards the FIRST LINE of my response is:

I’m not saying it wasn’t A reason. I’m just not so sure the reason was to make the FF film fail at ALL COSTS using Biblical Proportion tactics as expressed by some.

Then I bring it up in my next post - AGREEING that something WAS done - but questioning why it wouldn't be considered standard business:

Why would you publish something, that doesn't SELL for you, to promote someone who has the movie rights to it that you make no money from? What business operates like that?

It's VERY CLEAR that from the beginning I accepted that Ike/Disney/Marvel made some moves that didn't favor FOX. I questioned, if it was, as ROY put it 'working very hard to DESTROY the franchise in a corporate WAR of BIBLICAL proportions.'

Yes, I accept YOUR points that other people SAY it was - and that Jonathan Hickman, a respected writer for Marvel and the X-Men SAYS it was - but that doesn't mean I have to ACCEPT what they say as the gospel truth.

I still have yet to see a single thing that Marvel/Disney/Ike did that would actually HURT the movie.

Sorry, I will never believe canceling a COMIC BOOK - would have ANY effect on the movie. And a statue? Pfft.

Never seen a situation of any sort in my life - and I even owned two comic book stores in my life - where someone said, "I can't buy a statue? I'm not seeing the movie!"

The FF movie failed because of the cluster of nonsense surrounding production, the mismanagement of FOX studios, and... that it's not a very good movie. Plain and simple as that.

And I guess I'll have to make this clear for you - That DOESN'T mean I believe that Disney/Marvel/Ike didn't TRY to do something or make business moves that FAVORED them that could be SEEN by some as trying to disrupt FOX's plans. I just have yet to see anything that would make me think it had any effect at all. 

 

My forum? Then we will rename this section!

Meanwhile, you should talk with this fellow that dismissed the cancelled comics had anything to do with a Perlmutter/Marvel Entertainment disruption campaign. Missing the root cause for why these books were allowed to languish.

On 12/14/2023 at 11:16 AM, Prince Namor said:

Why would canceling the comic book make a difference? It was selling 28,000 copies a month. No one was reading it. How is that 'purposely' trying to kill the movie franchise?

You blew off merchandising cancellations in an attempt to disrupt Fox Studios's Marvel properties.

On 12/14/2023 at 5:12 PM, Prince Namor said:

This seems like the type of thing that fanboys freak out about... "Now I'm not going to get that Human Torch statue I really needed!!!" "Now the FF movie won't succeed... more Marvel movies... more Marvel movies...pant, pant, pant..."

You laid out a skit of EDITORIAL and IKE PERLMUTTER having a fictional conversation about cancelling books - as if that was not Perlmutter's attempt to spitefully sabotage his own comic books so as to cut off Fox Studios from using new stories and characters.

On 12/15/2023 at 9:57 PM, Prince Namor said:

Here's how I could see it going.

 

Editorial: Okay, what about the Fantastic Four? The book is not selling. There's no interest. 

Ike: How bad is it not selling?

Editorial: 28,000 copies a month.

Ike: Oh god, that's terrible even by today's standards. I got knuckleheads telling me to cancel Ms. Marvel for those same type of numbers - even though we sell twice that in digital copies for the book, which costs us nothing - you watch and see, people will come out of the woodwork to defend this turd of a Fantastic Four book! Hypocrites!

Editorial: Do we want to schedule a reboot for it? 

Ike: Hell, no. Why? It's not selling. There's no interest. And Fox is making that awful movie. I want no connection to that abomination. I don't want any toys, any promotion... let's let it sit for a while and we'll reboot it when the time is right. When the time is right for US.

Editorial: What about X-Men? 

Ike: What are those books selling?

Editorial: 50,000 to 60,000 copies a month. Star Wars has kind of sucked some air out of the rest of the line. 

Ike: At least that's not horrible. What happened to that book?

Editorial: We no longer have the likes of Grant Morrison, Kieron Gillian, etc...

Ike: OK, well, keep those. I don't want any toys though. The hell with Fox, why should we help them? Their level of ineptitude might be confused with us. And you know what... I don't want any more NEW mutants created. Put a HOLD on that.

Editorial: What should I say the reason is?

Ike: Don't. I mean, realistically we shouldn't have to explain ourselves. But I'm hearing that FOX is now going to do a movie based on Old Man Logan WITH X-23 in it. You watch, I'll bet they have him DIE in the movie, just like our Death of Wolverine!!! Those PUNKS! I'm giving them nothing!!

Editorial: Aren't you worried that canceling a comic book will undermine their movie?

They both look at each other blankly for a moment .... and then burst out laughing.

You pretended then to imply the campaign to disrupt Fox Studios really had no merit because who cares - comic book readers were the focus there. Missing the point Perlmutter didn't want Fox having access to new stories and characters associated with properties Fox had the movie rights to. The count of book readers didn't play into Perlmutter's intent.

On 12/16/2023 at 7:47 AM, Prince Namor said:

The 28,000 people who bought the turd wouldn't make a difference in how bad the movie bombed.

On 12/16/2023 at 5:58 AM, Prince Namor said:

I know this may be hard for many people to believe, but MOST adults... I would say upwards of 95%, couldn't care LESS about Toys or Comic Books. Those people didn't see the movie because it just didn't appeal to them. 

Then you were blending your attacks on Roy's statements with the facts I was posting of what was being reported through interviews with Marvel Entertainment insiders as if what Perlmutter's campaign had done was impactful to movie results. I definitely never posted Perlmutter's/Marvel Entertainment's campaign had worked. It was cutting off their own direct revenue off doing such things over an extended period, degrading the quality and brands associated with the books.

On 12/15/2023 at 11:56 AM, Prince Namor said:

Did it cause the FF movie to fail? I really don't see the correlation. That movie was doomed before it was even released, and comic book sales have proven to have no effect on movies.

Then you kindly referred to me as 'Zippy' as if that had anything to do with your supposed informed and educated diatribe against the facts of the matter. But yes - I had posted more than one fact proving my premise - including direct interviews with Chris Claremont and Jonathan Hickman on what was taking place. Which frustrated such creators who knew and loved these characters.

On 12/16/2023 at 7:47 AM, Prince Namor said:

Sorry, zippy... you haven't PROVEN anything.

Then as an example of Perlmutter's mindset and approach to business, I noted when Feige finally had to go to Iger to make a final stand over Perlmutter disrupting MCU growth leading to Feige reporting to Alan Horn and the disbandment of the Marvel Creative Committee as a strangehold. Missing the point insiders were sharing Perlmutter's intent to cut off new stories and characters to impact Fox. I never said this campaign actually impacted the movie results. I even noted Fox had access to hundreds of characters such as Deadpool, which once realized it was much later in its plans.

On 12/16/2023 at 5:58 AM, Prince Namor said:

They canceled a comic book. Comic Books don't sell movies. They canceled the toys. Toys don't sell movies.

Ultimately, the question comes down to believing it actually had an effect on the movies. You believe it did. I don't.

I think your biggest issue - which is clearly demonstrated by this latest follow-up post - is you have a personal problem with Roy. As once he posted one more time, that set you off and you were going to make us both aware of it. That's something you have to contend with. Not my problem. But you did go around-and-around on this topic, including dismissing facts and twisting my words that I said Perlmutter's disruption campaign actually worked. It was Fox Studios executives that were the biggest problem for its Marvel line of films later on. Before then - including the 1992-1996 X-Men animated series - things started off strong and prosperous. Which I clearly noted.

On 12/15/2023 at 7:56 PM, Bosco685 said:

I think you missed the points.

Even long-time writer Chris Claremon noted there was a ban on X-Men books leading to lack of promotion and new characters resulting in the lower sales. And although Ike Perlmutter did all he could to undermine future X-Men and Fantastic Four films, it was Fox Studios' executives driving their own failures. Including holding the Deadpool film in check for a few years.

But yes, Perlmutter attempted his own disruption through no merchandising or promotion and shutting down comic books to focus on Inhumans as the go-forward mutants. With the former also contributing to low sales.

Edited December 17, 2023 by Bosco685

[Prince Namor]

On 12/17/2023 at 5:38 PM, Bosco685 said:

Spoiler

My forum? Then we will rename this section!

Meanwhile, you should talk with this fellow that dismissed the cancelled comics had anything to do with a Perlmutter/Marvel Entertainment disruption campaign. Missing the root cause for why these books were allowed to languish.

 

You blew off merchandising cancellations in an attempt to disrupt Fox Studios's Marvel properties.

You laid out a skit of EDITORIAL and IKE PERLMUTTER having a fictional conversation about cancelling X-Men books - as if that was not Perlmutter's attempt to spitefully sabotage his own comic books so as to cut off Fox Studios from using new stories and characters.

 

You pretended then to imply the campaign to disrupt Fox Studios really had no merit because who cares - comic book readers were the focus there. Missing the point Perlmutter didn't want Fox having access to new stories and characters associated with properties Fox had the movie rights to. The count of book readers didn't play into Perlmutter's intent.

Then you were blending your attacks on Roy's statements with the facts I was posting of what was being reported through interviews with Marvel Entertainment insiders as if what Perlmutter's campaign had done was impactful to movie results. I definitely never posted Perlmutter's/Marvel Entertainment's campaign had worked. It was cutting off their own direct revenue off doing such things over an extended period, degrading the quality and brands associated with the books.

Then you kindly referred to me as 'Zippy' as if that had anything to do with your supposed informed and educated diatribe against the facts of the matter. But yes - I had posted more than one fact proving my premise - including direct interviews with Chris Claremont and Jonathan Hickman on what was taking place. Which frustrated such creators and knew and loved these characters.

Then as an example of Perlmutter's mindset and approach to business, I noted when Feige finally had to go to Iger to make a final stand over Perlmutter disrupting MCU growth leading to Feige reporting to Alan Horn and the disbandment of the Marvel Creative Committee as a strangehold. Missing the point insiders were sharing Perlmutter's intent to cut off new stories and characters to impact Fox. I never said this campaign actually impacted the movie results. I even noted Fox had access to hundreds of characters such as Deadpool, which once realized it was much later in its plans.

 

LOL

So we'll just agree to disagree on two points really.

1. The FF movie failed because it SUCKED, not because there were no comics or statues.

2. That what Disney/Ike did wasn't 'Sabo-TAGE of biblical proportions', but mostly common business sense to NOT give away IP to other companies.

On 12/17/2023 at 5:38 PM, Bosco685 said:

I think your biggest issue - which is clearly demonstrated by this latest follow-up post - is you have a personal problem with Roy. As once he posted one more time, that set you off and you were going to make us both aware of it.

It's a public message board. You post something, and people are going to sometimes comment. Roy's no different than anyone else.

On 12/17/2023 at 5:38 PM, Bosco685 said:

That's something you have to contend with. Not my problem. But you did go around-and-around on this topic, including dismissing facts and twisting my words that I said Perlmutter's disruption campaign actually worked.

Again - ROY wrote that - and I responded. YOU jumped into the discussion, apparently unaware of what was being discussed and instead steered toward what you wanted it to be about. Not MY problem.

I have no idea why you're continuing to post about this. I didn't 'go round' on anything.

My points are pretty basic... And we can just agree to disagree on them:

1. The FF movie failed because it SUCKED, not because there were no comics or statues.

2. That what Disney/Ike did wasn't 'Sabo-TAGE of biblical proportions' (as ROY wrote), but mostly common business sense to NOT give away IP to other companies.