MCU's FANTASTIC FOUR (TBD) 8 8

[VintageComics]

On 12/14/2023 at 2:17 PM, fantastic_four said:

You left out a few things they cancelled--the creation of any new X-Men characters since Fox automatically got film rights to all of them, plus Wolverine--who also was resurrected in 2018.  And what's significant about 2018?  That's after Fox and Disney came to terms on Disney's purchase of them.

So while I agree that FF isn't a premium seller, them cancelling it along with all of the other Fox comic-based properties then re-starting them after Disney bought Fox makes the intent pretty clear.

[Bosco685]

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

Quote

Less than a week ago, statue manufacturer XM Studios Premium Collectibles was showing off designs for their officially licensed X-Men Sentinel diorama.

 

But, because this is a story on Bleeding Cool, and you've read the headline, you know what's coming next, right? XM Studios Premium Collectibles have just posted to Facebook,

---------------

Folks, it's been a sad day for us… due to reasons we aren't at liberty to disclose, we have been asked to put a hard stop to all X-Men characters for now. That means Cable can't be released, and neither can the awesome Sentinel Diorama which we've all been so looking forward to. Still, we continue to have faith that this isn't an indefinite red light forever and you can have our promise we will be back to producing these dream pieces once the coast is clear – no matter how long it takes!

 

XM Studios Premium CollectiblesNo Fantastic 4 too… same issue

---------------

 

Of course long term readers on Bleeding Cool can just add this to the long list of withdrawn licenses from Marvel for anything related to the X-Men or Fantastic Four… as part of the publishers dispute with Fox, who owns the X-Men and Fantastic Four movie licenses.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

How anyone can ignore all these details that came out concerning how spiteful Marvel Entertainment became is beyond me.

• Inserting the Fantastic Four (2015) cast in a devisive comic book story to mock them
• Canceling comic runs to ensure Fox Studios couldn't claim any film rights to new characters
• Purposely halting any statues or other merchandise to promote Fox Studios Marvel films and shows

Ike Perlmutter wanted this to hurt to the point Fox Studios would cave to his demands.

[Bosco685]

On 12/14/2023 at 2:32 PM, VintageComics said:

See?

I had NO idea about ANY of these details, but all you need to have is a simple understanding of how business works, how human nature works and a little logic to piece it together and you can form a reasonable picture. Some people just don't get it or refuse to see it. 

And this is just the stuff we KNOW about.

I don't think most people can imagine the resources put into corporate espionage to squeeze out the competition. 

These corporations are no different than countries going to war, and in fact, they are basically as large as small countries so it's no surprise that they'd employ similar tactics. 

It's nice to think that everyone in charge would act like Snow White, but that's not reality. That's the illusion Disney and all corporations project while the corporate boardroom is performing slash and burn strategies to overtake the competition. 

And all without paragraphs of words to make it seem like statements are factual when in fact there are many reporting sites that were publishing this studio war real-time between 2014-2015.

[EastEnd1]

On 12/14/2023 at 2:17 PM, fantastic_four said:

You left out a few things they cancelled--the creation of any new X-Men characters since Fox automatically got film rights to all of them, plus Wolverine--who also was resurrected in 2018.  And what's significant about 2018?  That's after Fox and Disney came to terms on Disney's purchase of them.

So while I agree that FF isn't a premium seller, them cancelling it along with all of the other Fox comic-based properties then re-starting them after Disney bought Fox makes the intent pretty clear.

If I remember correctly, shortly after Disney and Fox came to terms, Comcast came in with a substantially higher all cash bid for Fox and a bidding war ensued between Disney and Comcast.  This was after AT&T had acquired Time Warner (still tied up in anti-trust review at the time) which triggered a general urgency in the industry to combine and achieve scale before you got left behind.  I suppose some of the activity at that time with Marvel characters could have been used to send a message to Comcast... or discourage other potential deep pocket suitors that might still show up (eg, Apple, Amazon, Google), but that is speculation on my part.  I defer to the folks that know the timing of the publication events better than I do.

Edited December 14, 2023 by EastEnd1

[fantastic_four]

On 12/14/2023 at 2:49 PM, EastEnd1 said:

If I remember correctly, shortly after Disney and Fox came to terms, Comcast came in with a substantially higher all cash bid for Fox and a bidding war ensued between Disney and Comcast.  This was after AT&T had acquired Time Warner (still tied up in anti-trust review at the time) which triggered a general urgency in the industry to combine and achieve scale before you got left behind.  I suppose some of the activity at that time with Marvel characters could have been used to send a message to Comcast... or discourage other potential deep pocket suitors that might still show up (eg, Apple, Amazon, Google), but that is speculation on my part. 

Comcast did delay the deal in 2018, but I don't know of any new measures Marvel took that year that hadn't already been in place for years so it's hard to tie any of the comic moves to Comcast's bid.  They didn't delay it by much; I think it was just a few months.  The deal was pretty much finalized in mid to late 2018, and it went through completely in early 2019.  And in 2018 like clockwork Marvel un-did all of their stuff with the Fox properties right after the Fox deal was in the bag.

[VintageComics]

On 12/14/2023 at 2:42 PM, Bosco685 said:

How anyone can ignore all these details that came out concerning how spiteful Marvel Entertainment became is beyond me.

As people we often ignore things that don't fit into our own narratives and those narratives are formed for different reasons. Some of us just don't understand the entire picture enough to see it, some of us have emotional or financial reasons, but it's clear as day that Disney and Fox were embroiled in an all out proxy war against each other to anyone paying attention and being objective. To argue otherwise is pretty much impossible to do. 

I know you love it when I post in the movie forum (  ) so thanks for sharing all of that and filling in the picture. It's much appreciated. 

[Buzzetta]

On 12/14/2023 at 2:42 PM, Bosco685 said:

How anyone can ignore all these details that came out concerning how spiteful Marvel Entertainment became is beyond me.

• Inserting the Fantastic Four (2015) cast in a devisive comic book story to mock them
• Canceling comic runs to ensure Fox Studios couldn't claim any film rights to new characters
• Purposely halting any statues or other merchandise to promote Fox Studios Marvel films and shows

Ike Perlmutter wanted this to hurt to the point Fox Studios would cave to his demands.

See I look at it more than Marvel Studios vs Fox Studios.  It was really Ike Perlmutter vs Fox Studios.  Once Ike is gone, Marvel Studios made it very clear that they wanted to do what was best for business, and it was Ike that was stagnating growth. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Buzzetta

[Prince Namor]

On 12/15/2023 at 2:17 AM, fantastic_four said:

You left out a few things they cancelled--the creation of any new X-Men characters since Fox automatically got film rights to all of them, plus Wolverine--who also was resurrected in 2018.  And what's significant about 2018?  That's after Fox and Disney came to terms on Disney's purchase of them.

So while I agree that FF isn't a premium seller, them cancelling it along with all of the other Fox comic-based properties then re-starting them after Disney bought Fox makes the intent pretty clear.

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’m just looking at facts.

Wolverine was #64 and selling 31,164 copies in January of 2014. Wolverine would show up as Old Man Logan in January of 2016.

#65 at 30,533 was IRON MAN - Also canceled. (Iron Man would get rebooted in 2015, and after 14 issues again get canceled).

So Wolverine DID remain around in one form or another...

 

All-New X-Men and Uncanny X-Men would finally get canceled with the Aug 2015 issue, but hit the newsstands with a reboot the following year. In January of 2014, they were #14 with sales of 62,876 and #17 with 58,676. Why weren't THEY canceled until 2018? Seems to me, because they sold better.

In FACT, the cover dated January 2016 issues featured numerous X-Men titles: All-New Wolverine (featuring X-23, Wolverine had ‘died’ in 2014 and hadn’t come back yet), All-New X-Men, Extraordinary X-Men, Old Man Logan (which featured a future version of Wolverine), Uncanny X-Men, plus the Death of Wolverine tpb, House of M: Warzones tpb, X-Men: Colossus - God’s Country and X-Men Inferno Vol. 1 tpb.

Just in time to promote the X-Men Apocalypse film in May of 2016!

Why weren't they trying to 'destroy' (as some people put it) THAT movie?

 

If there were no new X-Men characters created during this time, wouldn’t that make good BUSINESS sense for Marvel? Why WOULD you, as a business, create MORE characters for someone else to use in the much more profitable realm of movies? (Especially a franchise like the X-Men which has so many endless amount of characters anyway… is that RUTHLESS (as some make it sound like) or just good business?

 

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).

Again, I’m not saying the cancelation of the FF comic wasn’t A reason. The main reason? I don’t know. Seems an awful lot of the other Fox Movie owned characters got plenty of play in print titles during the same period of time. 

Most likely it got canceled like a lot of other low selling books did at the time and Marvel had no BUSINESS reason to bring it back right away, including the fact that someone else (Fox) was making a movie with those characters. Hardly the diabolical scheme of a corporation trying to rule the world (as some would make it sound).

Edited December 14, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

On 12/15/2023 at 4:30 AM, VintageComics said:

As people we often ignore things that don't fit into our own narratives and those narratives are formed for different reasons.

[Prince Namor]

I look at it as basic business. Comic Books, especially individual one's are NOT big 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?

Marvel obviously DID do that with comics that SOLD for them: X-Men continued to be published in numerous books, Deadpool was plastered all over the place, Old Man Logan with X-23... Spider-man they worked out a deal for... and would never be canceled under any terms.

But the FF was a comic book DUD. It didn't sell. Not in print OR digital. 

Really, it makes sense to me. 

And again - why create NEW characters in PRINT, if the media you make the real money off of them in, IS SOMEONE ELSE's.

Add to that... that Fox was making a version of the FF that WASN'T in line with what the original owners of the Franchise viewed it... who would do that?

"What? You're going to make a version of the FF that doesn't resemble anything we've ever done or plan to do? Of course, we'll continue to support it with a comic book that doesn't make us any money, and we'll even create some new characters for you. Of course, we'll do it all for FREE. That's how business works!"

Uh, no.

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..."

[Bosco685]

On 12/14/2023 at 4:46 PM, Buzzetta said:

See I look at it more than Marvel Studios vs Fox Studios.  It was really Ike Perlmutter vs Fox Studios.  Once Ike is gone, Marvel Studios made it very clear that they wanted to do what was best for business, and it was Ike that was stagnating growth. 

It was a Perlmutter war. He had all the power across Marvel Studios and Marvel Entertainment, and he brought that to bear. Including cancelling comics, canceling merchandising and cutting off Fox Studios from any new properties to build upon. Which is short-sighted and silly, as if Fox Studios had really gotten its act together it had hundreds of characters to build upon. And as Deadpool proved, do it right and a single character with the right supporting cast could be a huge win.

[Bosco685]

On 12/14/2023 at 4:30 PM, VintageComics said:

As people we often ignore things that don't fit into our own narratives and those narratives are formed for different reasons. Some of us just don't understand the entire picture enough to see it, some of us have emotional or financial reasons, but it's clear as day that Disney and Fox were embroiled in an all out proxy war against each other to anyone paying attention and being objective. To argue otherwise is pretty much impossible to do. 

I know you love it when I post in the movie forum (  ) so thanks for sharing all of that and filling in the picture. It's much appreciated. 

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.

[VintageComics]

On 12/14/2023 at 5:57 PM, Bosco685 said:

It was a Perlmutter war. He had all the power across Marvel Studios and Marvel Entertainment, and he brought that to bear. Including cancelling comics, canceling merchandising and cutting off Fox Studios from any new properties to build upon. Which is short-sighted and silly, as if Fox Studios had really gotten its act together it had hundreds of characters to build upon. And as Deadpool proved, do it right and a single character with the right supporting cast could be a huge win.

 

On 12/14/2023 at 6:00 PM, Bosco685 said:

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.

Bosco, what's happening is there's a small group of people who dislike me because I've disagreed with them in the past and they follow me around from thread to thread. The reason there's so much wrangling going on wherever I post is because they try to use my own words against me to trip me up, bait me into a strike or just grate on me while trying not to make it appear so. 

I don't engage them because it's fruitless, as you've already seen. 

Just wanted to be transparent and apologize to everyone for the constant, unnecessary distractions. 

[EastEnd1]

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

I look at it as basic business. Comic Books, especially individual one's are NOT big 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?

Marvel obviously DID do that with comics that SOLD for them: X-Men continued to be published in numerous books, Deadpool was plastered all over the place, Old Man Logan with X-23... Spider-man they worked out a deal for... and would never be canceled under any terms.

But the FF was a comic book DUD. It didn't sell. Not in print OR digital. 

Really, it makes sense to me. 

And again - why create NEW characters in PRINT, if the media you make the real money off of them in, IS SOMEONE ELSE's.

Add to that... that Fox was making a version of the FF that WASN'T in line with what the original owners of the Franchise viewed it... who would do that?

"What? You're going to make a version of the FF that doesn't resemble anything we've ever done or plan to do? Of course, we'll continue to support it with a comic book that doesn't make us any money, and we'll even create some new characters for you. Of course, we'll do it all for FREE. That's how business works!"

Uh, no.

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..."

 

Ah yes, in the words of Sonny (and Michael) Corleone, "This isn't personal, it's strictly business."

As I've said, Fox never sued Disney/Marvel for all this alleged destruction of their license and so since I know Fox's execs and legal dept are pretty sophisticated, that tells me the alleged destruction didn't happen... at least not to a degree that created a winnable lawsuit or materially violated the license.  (Though there could be another reason that I'll get to later).  And so all these small events that have been cited (especially small in the context of two massive media behemoths), lead me to one conclusion... SO WHAT?  It's a BUSINESS.  Somehow there's a big revelation here that corporations try hard to get a leg up on each other??  This is how the corporate world works folks... always has, always will.

Let's review the history.  First, Marvel, a small publisher without the resources to produce film blockbusters from its own great IP, licenses it's FF and X-Men IP to Fox, a well-resourced film producer and distributor.  They do this so that the value potential from great blockbuster films featuring their characters can be monetized.  Marvel and Fox  ARE NOT COMPETITORS... they are verticals, partners if you will... one has the IP, the other has the cash, production assets and distribution channels.  It's a marriage made in heaven (sort of).

Spring forward a number of years and Marvel is acquired by Disney, a major COMPETITOR of Fox.  Now Marvel too becomes a COMPETITOR of Fox.  Do you expect the dynamics of the Marvel/Fox relationship will change?  You bet your darn petunias it will.  It has to.  All the players now COMPETE.  So might Marvel/Disney try to do some little things (within the confines of the law AND the agreements they've signed) to antagonize their old licensor into abandoning the license... sure, so long as they believe they can make more money self producing films from the IP rather than licensing the IP.  This is the capitalist system in which we all operate... and there's nothing wrong with it.. again, so long as laws and agreements aren't violated.

Now, back to why Fox never sued Disney.  There is one more possibility.  Rupert Murdoch, a fairly shrewd business man himself, perhaps saw the writing on the wall for his film studio once Disney bought Marvel.  That acquisition, and Disney's purchase of Lucasfilm, hit the industry like an atom bomb.  A film studio was going to need some serious IP and franchise material to compete.  I know we felt it at the company I was at.  Fox was especially vulnerable in that environment and I'm sure parting with his studio became very real to Rupert before it got "squeezed".  So why not sue Disney?  Because they had the deepest pockets in the industry and were the most likely buyer.  "It's strictly business."  

[Bosco685]

On 12/14/2023 at 6:34 PM, EastEnd1 said:

 

Ah yes, in the words of Sonny (and Michael) Corleone, "This isn't personal, it's strictly business."

As I've said, Fox never sued Disney/Marvel for all this alleged destruction of their license and so since I know Fox's execs and legal dept are pretty sophisticated, that tells me the alleged destruction didn't happen... at least not to a degree that created a winnable lawsuit or materially violated the license.  (Though there could be another reason that I'll get to later).  And so all these small events that have been cited (especially small in the context of two massive media behemoths), lead me to one conclusion... SO WHAT?  It's a BUSINESS.  Somehow there's a big revelation here that corporations try hard to get a leg up on each other??  This is how the corporate world works folks... always has, always will.

Let's review the history.  First, Marvel, a small publisher without the resources to produce film blockbusters from its own great IP, licenses it's FF and X-Men IP to Fox, a well-resourced film producer and distributor.  They do this so that the value potential from great blockbuster films featuring their characters can be monetized.  Marvel and Fox  ARE NOT COMPETITORS... they are verticals, partners if you will... one has the IP, the other has the cash, production assets and distribution channels.  It's a marriage made in heaven (sort of).

Spring forward a number of years and Marvel is acquired by Disney, a major COMPETITOR of Fox.  Now Marvel too becomes a COMPETITOR of Fox.  Do you expect the dynamics of the Marvel/Fox relationship will change?  You bet your darn petunias it will.  It has to.  All the players now COMPETE.  So might Marvel/Disney try to do some little things (within the confines of the law AND the agreements they've signed) to antagonize their old licensor into abandoning the license... sure, so long as they believe they can make more money self producing films from the IP rather than licensing the IP.  This is the capitalist system in which we all operate... and there's nothing wrong with it.. again, so long as laws and agreements aren't violated.

Now, back to why Fox never sued Disney.  There is one more possibility.  Rupert Murdoch, a fairly shrewd business man himself, perhaps saw the writing on the wall for his film studio once Disney bought Marvel.  That acquisition, and Disney's purchase of Lucasfilm, hit the industry like an atom bomb.  A film studio was going to need some serious IP and franchise material to compete.  I know we felt it at the company I was at.  Fox was especially vulnerable in that environment and I'm sure parting with his studio became very real to Rupert before it got "squeezed".  So why not sue Disney?  Because they had the deepest pockets in the industry and were the most likely buyer.  "It's strictly business."  

Isn't that amazing when someone finally lands at the same spot from a point made earlier? 

On 12/14/2023 at 12:27 PM, Bosco685 said:

Appreciate the assumption the world is a straightforward and respectful place, where everyone follows the rules. Then you have a powerhouse like Disney that owns Marvel Entertainment, and the heavyhitter at that time. Meanwhile, Ike Perlmutter demanded Fantastic Four and X-Men comics make drastic changes. And even with the story in The Punisher Vol. 10 #12, they proceeded to insert the main cast into the story where they blow up. 

Marvel blows up new Fantastic Four film cast (2014)

And yes. This is real.

[VintageComics]

On 12/14/2023 at 6:34 PM, EastEnd1 said:

Ah yes, in the words of Sonny (and Michael) Corleone, "This isn't personal, it's strictly business."

As I've said, Fox never sued Disney/Marvel for all this alleged destruction of their license and so since I know Fox's execs and legal dept are pretty sophisticated, that tells me the alleged destruction didn't happen... at least not to a degree that created a winnable lawsuit or materially violated the license.  (Though there could be another reason that I'll get to later).  And so all these small events that have been cited (especially small in the context of two massive media behemoths), lead me to one conclusion... SO WHAT?  It's a BUSINESS.  Somehow there's a big revelation here that corporations try hard to get a leg up on each other??  This is how the corporate world works folks... always has, always will.

Let's review the history.  First, Marvel, a small publisher without the resources to produce film blockbusters from its own great IP, licenses it's FF and X-Men IP to Fox, a well-resourced film producer and distributor.  They do this so that the value potential from great blockbuster films featuring their characters can be monetized.  Marvel and Fox  ARE NOT COMPETITORS... they are verticals, partners if you will... one has the IP, the other has the cash, production assets and distribution channels.  It's a marriage made in heaven (sort of).

Spring forward a number of years and Marvel is acquired by Disney, a major COMPETITOR of Fox.  Now Marvel too becomes a COMPETITOR of Fox.  Do you expect the dynamics of the Marvel/Fox relationship will change?  You bet your darn petunias it will.  It has to.  All the players now COMPETE.  So might Marvel/Disney try to do some little things (within the confines of the law AND the agreements they've signed) to antagonize their old licensor into abandoning the license... sure, so long as they believe they can make more money self producing films from the IP rather than licensing the IP.  This is the capitalist system in which we all operate... and there's nothing wrong with it.. again, so long as laws and agreements aren't violated.

Didn't you yourself say (I'm paraphrasing) that it was unlikely that Disney was trying to starve Fox out by shutting down or manipulating their Marvel owned franchises? Your reasoning for believing this was that if Disney had done that, Fox would have had a lawsuit against them. 

Now you're saying 'it's just business'. 

I agree. Nobody is saying it was personal.

I just don't think Joe Public realizes how extensive and intense the corporate backstabbing in the industry can be, and I'm just making the case that Disney isn't the "Snow White' they project themselves to be to Joe Public. 

On 12/14/2023 at 6:34 PM, EastEnd1 said:

Now, back to why Fox never sued Disney.  There is one more possibility.  Rupert Murdoch, a fairly shrewd business man himself, perhaps saw the writing on the wall for his film studio once Disney bought Marvel.  That acquisition, and Disney's purchase of Lucasfilm, hit the industry like an atom bomb.  A film studio was going to need some serious IP and franchise material to compete.  I know we felt it at the company I was at.  Fox was especially vulnerable in that environment and I'm sure parting with his studio became very real to Rupert before it got "squeezed".  So why not sue Disney?  Because they had the deepest pockets in the industry and were the most likely buyer.  "It's strictly business."  

Of course. 

This is the point I've been making all along through various avenues of reasoning and yet always coming up with the same answer:

The rules don't really matter.

Big Money dictates the rules before, during and even after the game.

If you ARE the game, you ARE the rules. 

On 12/14/2023 at 6:47 PM, Bosco685 said:

Isn't that amazing when someone finally lands at the same spot from a point made earlier? 

[EastEnd1]

On 12/14/2023 at 6:47 PM, Bosco685 said:

Isn't that amazing when someone finally lands at the same spot from a point made earlier? 

Well, not sure we're exactly landing in the same place... you're making Disney/Marvel out to be a villain and I'm saying what they've done, if anything, is within the legitimate confines of how companies operate.  But I'm all for comity so here you go...     

Edited December 15, 2023 by EastEnd1

[Bosco685]

On 12/14/2023 at 7:02 PM, EastEnd1 said:

Well, not sure we're exactly landing in the same place... you're making Disney/Marvel out to be a villain and I'm saying what they've done, if anything, is within the legitimate confines of how companies operate.  But I'm all for comity so here you go...     

You assume I implied villain. Don't assume.

I conveyed what actions Perlmutter and team took post Daredevil rights negotiations. For all we know, the Fox Studio negotiators may have even antagonized the Disney team. Who knows but them?

Changes in discussion perspectives can make a huge difference.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/15/2023 at 6:34 AM, EastEnd1 said:

 

Ah yes, in the words of Sonny (and Michael) Corleone, "This isn't personal, it's strictly business."

As I've said, Fox never sued Disney/Marvel for all this alleged destruction of their license and so since I know Fox's execs and legal dept are pretty sophisticated, that tells me the alleged destruction didn't happen... at least not to a degree that created a winnable lawsuit or materially violated the license.  (Though there could be another reason that I'll get to later).  And so all these small events that have been cited (especially small in the context of two massive media behemoths), lead me to one conclusion... SO WHAT?  It's a BUSINESS.  Somehow there's a big revelation here that corporations try hard to get a leg up on each other??  This is how the corporate world works folks... always has, always will.

Exactly.

Marvel/Disney is in no way responsible for HELPING a competitor make more money.

And even if they did the things they are alleged to have done for the REASONS that are alleged to have done...

It's... SMALL.

Marvel/Disney canceling a comic or statues or whatever has no impact on if a film is successful or not. 

Most all of the successful films of Marvel are based on comics who haven't had a successful run in decades. Based on the MOVIES, you'd think the Iron Man Comic Book was something special. It's NOT. Iron Man was a dud seller throughout its history. Even in the 90's, at the height of speculation, Iron Man couldn't break the 200,000 mark - well in 1986, it DID finally hit 201,092, but that was it. 

And then...

Iron Man in June of 2007 - #20 with 75,096 

Iron Man in June of 2008 - #22 with 69,021 (That's issue #2 of a brand NEW series, one MONTH after the movie came out!)

Iron Man in June of 2009 - #22 with 51,311

The movie had absolutely no effect on the POSITIVE sales of the comic book.

 

Marvel canceling the Fantastic Four, for WHATEVER reason (and statues, ha ha ha) had no effect on the outcome of that movie.

On 12/15/2023 at 6:34 AM, EastEnd1 said:

Now, back to why Fox never sued Disney.  There is one more possibility.  Rupert Murdoch, a fairly shrewd business man himself, perhaps saw the writing on the wall for his film studio once Disney bought Marvel.  That acquisition, and Disney's purchase of Lucasfilm, hit the industry like an atom bomb.  A film studio was going to need some serious IP and franchise material to compete.  I know we felt it at the company I was at.  Fox was especially vulnerable in that environment and I'm sure parting with his studio became very real to Rupert before it got "squeezed".  So why not sue Disney?  Because they had the deepest pockets in the industry and were the most likely buyer.  "It's strictly business."  

Perhaps. I'm sure they were thinking in that regard.

But I'd still ask the question... what exactly would they sue them for?