MCU's FANTASTIC FOUR (TBD) 8 8

[Bosco685]

On 12/14/2023 at 8:00 PM, Prince Namor said:

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.

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

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

Make sure you use earplugs before burying your head in the "ignore the facts" sand.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/15/2023 at 8:02 AM, Bosco685 said:

Make sure you use earplugs before burying your head in the "ignore the facts" sand.

Which fact did I ignore?

[Prince Namor]

On 12/15/2023 at 6:09 AM, VintageComics said:

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. 

When you post statements on a public forum, people are going to sometimes challenge them.

There's nothing personal about it at all.

You can't back up your statements. That's life. The conversation goes on.

[Bosco685]

On 12/14/2023 at 8:06 PM, Prince Namor said:

Which fact did I ignore?

Go back and read other than "haahaa they took my merchandising." That's like posting pictures with you in blinders.

[Buzzetta]

On 12/14/2023 at 8:00 PM, Prince Namor said:

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.

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

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

I am not going to speculate on the comics front as anything I know is basically speculation or conjecture.  I have nothing to offer there.  However, I can speak with some authority with the toy front during the time period.   

The only thing I want to point out though that they did have approval control of the merchandising.  There are well documented accounts of a couple of manufacturers having to shelve ideas for FF and X-Men related products despite having the license to create them.  Disney was not permitting it.  Lego immediately comes to mind.  I would have to check my records on Hasbro products but I am pretty sure there is a major absence of any supportive materials with them as well. 

This was not a blanket order on non Disney controlled Marvel properties as merchandising on both the Lego and Marvel fronts moved forward with Marvel / Sony's Spider-man.   I have to run out but if interested I can offer the Lego accounts pretty easily a little later on.. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Buzzetta

[Bosco685]

On 12/14/2023 at 8:10 PM, Buzzetta said:

I am not going to speculate on the comics front as anything I know is basically speculation or conjecture.  I have nothing to offer there.  However, I can speak with some authority with the toy front during the time period.   

The only thing I want to point out though that they did have approval control of the merchandising.  There are well documented accounts of a couple of manufacturers having to shelve ideas for FF and X-Men related products despite having the license to create them.  Disney was not permitting it.  Lego immediately comes to mind.  I would have to check my records on Hasbro products but I am pretty sure there is a major absence of any supportive materials with them as well. 

This was not a blanket order on non Disney controlled Marvel properties as merchandising on both the Lego and Marvel fronts moved forward with Marvel / Sony's Spider-man.   I have to run out but if interested I can offer the Lego accounts pretty easily. 

Those are facts. You better hold off on those.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/15/2023 at 8:09 AM, Bosco685 said:

Go back and read other than "haahaa they took my merchandising." That's like posting pictures with you in blinders.

You've made a statement you can't back up.

Which 'facts' did I ignore?

[Bosco685]

On 12/14/2023 at 8:14 PM, Prince Namor said:

You've made a statement you can't back up.

Which 'facts' did I ignore?

I made a statement I can't back up? I already posting plenty of details. To include reporting sites digging up what was taking place.

You posting clown posts about fanboys upset they can't buy their merchandise, unfortunately, conveys ignorance to facts through dismissal. Grow more than that.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/15/2023 at 8:10 AM, Buzzetta said:

I am not going to speculate on the comics front as anything I know is basically speculation or conjecture.  I have nothing to offer there.  However, I can speak with some authority with the toy front during the time period.   

The only thing I want to point out though that they did have approval control of the merchandising.  There are well documented accounts of a couple of manufacturers having to shelve ideas for FF and X-Men related products despite having the license to create them.  Disney was not permitting it.  Lego immediately comes to mind.  I would have to check my records on Hasbro products but I am pretty sure there is a major absence of any supportive materials with them as well. 

This was not a blanket order on non Disney controlled Marvel properties as merchandising on both the Lego and Marvel fronts moved forward with Marvel / Sony's Spider-man.   I have to run out but if interested I can offer the Lego accounts pretty easily a little later on.. 

Oh no, Marvel/Disney definitely pulled those plans.

Marvel/Disney isn't under any obligation to make those toys - especially considering the split of revenue.

ESPECIALLY considering they made 100% of the profit for the movies THEY had on the table at the time: Guardians of the Galaxy, Age of Ultron, Ant-Man, and with Civil War and Black Panther coming up.

Why would they waste their resources on a movie for Fox, that had CLEAR production issues and controversy before it was even released - to make toys for them that they only made 50% of the revenue for, when... they had plenty on their own table to make 100% with?

 

Did it effect the outcome of the movie?

X-Men Age of Apocalypse was going through the same process with the toys and that movie did over half a Billion.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

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

I made a statement I can't back up? I already posting plenty of details. To include reporting sites digging up what was taking place.

You posting clown posts about fanboys upset they can't buy their merchandise, unfortunately, conveys ignorance to facts through dismissal. Grow more than that.

You can continue to play this game. I'll stick to the conversation.

You made a statement Make sure you use earplugs before burying your head in the "ignore the facts" sand.

I asked, "Which facts did I ignore?"

You haven't provided any.

[Bosco685]

On 12/14/2023 at 8:28 PM, Prince Namor said:

You can continue to play this game. I'll stick to the conversation.

You made a statement Make sure you use earplugs before burying your head in the "ignore the facts" sand.

I asked, "Which facts did I ignore?"

You haven't provided any.

I provided plenty. And without distractions buried in 4-5 paragraphs of broad statements. Go back and read what was posted.

Glad to see you took me off ignore.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/14/2023 at 8:26 AM, VintageComics said:

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 12/14/2023 at 8:26 AM, VintageComics said:

It's unreal how much was going against that movie, making it nearly impossible to succeed. 

 

On 12/14/2023 at 8:26 AM, VintageComics said:

Disney and Marvel worked VERY HARD to destroy the franchise that Fox owned, which probably played directly into Disney buying it from Fox just a few short years after the movie tanked. 

 

On 12/14/2023 at 8:26 AM, VintageComics said:

a corporate war going on of Biblical proportions over that franchise. 

 

On 12/14/2023 at 8:26 AM, VintageComics said:

if there was even more corporate espionage than we've uncovered in just these few posts that Disney would do

The Black Sabbath lyrics for War Pigs "moving people just like pawns in chess" was never so true. They play with people's lives for profit. 

Mind boggling. 

I have no problem believing that Disney/Marvel canceled the comic, because they didn't want to promote it for Fox.

Ultimately though, they canceled it because it was a huge sales dud.

I mean - X-Men continued being published, despite the 'no new charcters' edict, though having 10,000 mutants to choose from, it had no impact at all.

And Wolverine in one form or another and Deadpool and Spider-man were still EVERYWHERE in the comics.

The Toys? Yep. Why make them for a movie you only get 50% of the revenue, when your time, resources and MONEY can be better used in the HUGE Properties you already own that make you 100% of the revenue. (On top of making toys for their own Guardians of the Galaxy, Age of Ultron, Ant-Man, with Civil War and Black Panther coming up, Marvel/Disney ALSO at the time had Star Wars Episode 7 toys and Star Wars Rogue One toys they had to put together as well. It's no wonder they skipped the disaster of the FF movie that they wouldn't have made money on. In hindsight it was a GREAT business decision.).

Calling it 'corporate espionage' and a 'corporate war of Biblical proportions' and Marvel 'trying to KILL the FF franchise' just seems extremely hyperbolic.

They canceled a comic book no one was reading and aimed their toy making at two huge properties that they made the most money from.

Sounds like smart business to me.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Cat]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:10 AM, Buzzetta said:

I am not going to speculate on the comics front as anything I know is basically speculation or conjecture.  I have nothing to offer there.  However, I can speak with some authority with the toy front during the time period.   

The only thing I want to point out though that they did have approval control of the merchandising.  There are well documented accounts of a couple of manufacturers having to shelve ideas for FF and X-Men related products despite having the license to create them.  Disney was not permitting it.  Lego immediately comes to mind.  I would have to check my records on Hasbro products but I am pretty sure there is a major absence of any supportive materials with them as well. 

This was not a blanket order on non Disney controlled Marvel properties as merchandising on both the Lego and Marvel fronts moved forward with Marvel / Sony's Spider-man.   I have to run out but if interested I can offer the Lego accounts pretty easily a little later on.. 

We saw a memo for MVC Infinite stating that they weren't allowed to use any FF or X-Men characters, apart from perhaps Dr Doom (it's been awhile, I might be misremembering that bit). The ban definitely existed. Certain X-Men had been mainstays in the MvC games, like Wolverine for example, he'd been in every one. 

[Bosco685]

On 12/15/2023 at 12:20 AM, Cat said:

We saw a memo for MVC Infinite stating that they weren't allowed to use any FF or X-Men characters, apart from perhaps Dr Doom (it's been awhile, I might be misremembering that bit). The ban definitely existed. Certain X-Men had been mainstays in the MvC games, like Wolverine for example, he'd been in every one. 

Rather than it serving as revenue decisions, it was more about cutting off all avenues of promoting or adding new characters to Fox Studios' Marvel properties. Once the reporters picked up on this from insiders, the picture became clear.

Something from that Daredevil/Silver Surfer & Galactus negotiation occurred that made Fox enemy #1 for Perlmutter and Marvel Entertainment. Would love to know what.

[Bosco685]

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

 

 

Fact #1

[Bosco685]

On 12/14/2023 at 12:33 PM, Bosco685 said:

And around that same time...

Disney Continues Cancelling X-Men & Fantastic Four Merchandise (2015)

 

Fact #2

[Bosco685]

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.

Fact #3

[Bosco685]

Fact #4

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

Quote

In fact, word on the street has been that the relationship between Fox and Marvel is rather tense. In case you need any more evidence of that, X-Men comics writer Chris Claremont has given his take on how the recent downfall of X-Men comics is tied directly to movie rights ownership and plain old show business.

 

In an interview with Bleeding Cool (via Collider) about the state of X-Men comics, specifically their low sales, Chris Claremont offered up this bitter take on the topic:

 

"That has nothing to do with comic sales, that has everything to do with the fact that the film rights are controlled by a rival corporation."

 

Indeed, both in the Marvel cinematic universe (by way of Agents of SHIELD) and in the comics, Inhumans have become the new mutants. That's essentially because those characters can have similar powers and have a team element like the X-Men, but Marvel doesn't have to worry about benefiting Fox's movie franchise by giving them fresh stories to turn into movies. That's also why they're not really creating new characters in the X-Men universe anymore.

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.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Bosco685

[fantastic_four]

On 12/14/2023 at 8:10 PM, Buzzetta said:

The only thing I want to point out though that they did have approval control of the merchandising.  There are well documented accounts of a couple of manufacturers having to shelve ideas for FF and X-Men related products despite having the license to create them.  Disney was not permitting it.  Lego immediately comes to mind.  I would have to check my records on Hasbro products but I am pretty sure there is a major absence of any supportive materials with them as well. 

In the 2000s Toy Biz and Hasbro put out plenty of movie-based action figures from both the Sony and Fox movies.  Comic-based figures were never affected and Toy Biz/Hasbro has always put a lot of comic figures out aside from the early 2010s when Hasbro got the license and slowed down on making figures dramatically, but then picked back up around 2014/2015.  Neither Sony nor Fox have merchandising rights to go with their film deals, but what they do have is the rights to the specific looks and actor likenesses from their films.  But neither company had merchandising rights for the characters so Marvel had to drive the merchandising and all Sony and Fox could do was take a cut to give their approval for the film-based copyright looks.

In the early to mid 2000s both Sony and Fox were giving rights for toys to Toy Biz and Hasbro.  In the late 2000s and in the 2010s it was more mixed.  For the most part Fox stopped giving permission for action figures from the films.  Sony mostly still gave them, but I'm guessing their cut was too high because Hasbro didn't make a ton of figures from the movies until the Marvel/Sony movies starting with Homecoming came out.  And even while Hasbro was cranking out Tom Holland franchise figures they weren't making figures from the other Sony properties such as Venom and Spider-Verse as much, presumably because the margins were lower, or maybe Hasbro and/or Marvel just thought those movies would be and wouldn't sell toys.  I doubt it was the latter because certainly Avi Arad knew that Venom toys sell since that's supposedly the reason he insisted that the character be in Spider-Man 3.  In any event in 2020 and 2021 Hasbro started making Venom and Spider-Verse figures well after both films came out, so something must have changed to inspire them to start creating figures for those films.  Maybe it was just the big box office totals from both films that inspired it, or maybe they negotiated Sony's cut down a bit, not really sure.  

[Bosco685]

On 12/15/2023 at 10:35 AM, fantastic_four said:

In any event in 2020 and 2021 Hasbro started making Venom and Spider-Verse figures well after both films came out, so something must have changed to inspire them to start creating figures for those films.  Maybe it was just the big box office totals from both films that inspired it, or maybe they negotiated Sony's cut down a bit, not really sure.  

From the Marvel Shell Game thread:

On 7/28/2019 at 9:54 AM, Bosco685 said:

CONFIRMED:

Marvel Studios

• Spider-Man (merchandising rights): News Article #1.

Disney purchased the Spider-Man merchandising rights back in 2011 when Sony was struggling for cash at the time.