MCU's FANTASTIC FOUR (TBD) 8 8

[fantastic_four]

On 12/14/2023 at 8:26 PM, Prince Namor said:

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?

Disney doesn't have any resources to waste for toys because they barely create any.  They create a few little kid toys for Marvel, but Marvel and then Disney after they bought them mostly outsource toys to Hasbro from 2007 on.  Prior to 2007 Toy Biz did the toys, and that was a separate company owned by Ike Perlmutter and Avi Arad that merged with Marvel in the late 1990s when they were going bankrupt.  Toy Biz did movie figures for the Fox and Sony films throughout its existence until it shut down in 2007.

After Hasbro got the license in 2007 the Fox toys stopped, although I'm not sure it was immediate; I think Hasbro did create at least a few Fox movie-based action figures.  I think every Sony Spider-Man film did have toys released with it up through Amazing Spider-Man 2.  The fact that Fox toys stopped but Sony didn't suggests the choice was specific to Fox.  Maybe it was Fox who stopped it, maybe it was Marvel.  I haven't been able to tell whose fault it was.  My guess is Fox just because the attempts to freeze Fox out on the comic side by Perlmutter at Marvel didn't really start until around 2013/2014, so I doubt Marvel would have been strategically preventing Fox movie toys before then.

[fantastic_four]

On 12/14/2023 at 8:40 PM, Prince Namor said:

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.

If they cancelled the comics because they were huge sales duds then why did they immediately re-start all of them after they bought Fox?  I mean I was PRETTY sure that they were freezing Fox out from 2014 to 2018, but the fact that everything quickly restarted after Disney bought Fox seemed to confirm the hypothesis.  Also they did NOT make Wolverine comics from 2014 to 2018.  They killed the character off in 2014, then resurrected him right after Disney had the Fox deal in the bag--and I do mean RIGHT after, as in after Fox agreed to the deal but not before it had completely gone through.

I agree with Buzzetta that the call to freeze out Fox was almost certainly Ike Perlmutter's idea.  I've never seen Kevin Feige do anything quite so cutthroat or devious.

[Bosco685]

On 12/15/2023 at 10:47 AM, fantastic_four said:

Disney doesn't have any resources to waste for toys because they barely create any.

From the 2019 Global Licensors annual report, Disney brought in $53 Billion in merchandising revenue, topping all other brands. It definitely figured out the right model for all its products.

 

[fantastic_four]

On 12/15/2023 at 10:39 AM, Bosco685 said:

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.

My understanding of the deals between Marvel and Sony are that Marvel owns everything, but they licensed film rights to Sony.  Alternative media like television and video games are also covered somehow, but differently, and I forget the differences.  I've always heard that merchandising was never owned by either Sony or Fox.

However, that doesn't mean Marvel was ever free to just put out Spider-Man or X-Men toys that looked like the versions of the characters in the films, or that had the actors' likenesses.  Those are Sony's (and Fox's) because of the nature of copyright law.  That article you linked specifically refers to Marvel buying rights to Amazing Spider-Man.  That just seems like a new financial arrangement with the same end result--instead of Sony getting a cut of the toys and Marvel getting a cut of the films, this 2011 deal swapped the cuts so that Marvel got all the toy money and Sony got all the movie money.  Either way it's Sony giving their permission for Marvel's contractor Hasbro to create toys.

They probably had that same deal for Amazing Spider-Man 2, and it ended once they struck the Homecoming deal.  I'm about 99% sure that Marvel would have had Hasbro create toys for the first Venom movie if that same 2011 deal in your article was still in place in 2018 when Venom and Spider-Verse came out, but for whatever reason Hasbro didn't make toys for those films until 2020.

[Bosco685]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:15 AM, fantastic_four said:

My understanding of the deals between Marvel and Sony are that Marvel owns everything, but they licensed film rights to Sony.  Alternative media like television and video games are also covered somehow, but differently, and I forget the differences.  I've always heard that merchandising was never owned by either Sony or Fox.

If you read the article reference I posted when you get a chance, you will find out Sony owned the merchandising rights up to Nov-2011. That is when Disney purchased it from them.

[fantastic_four]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:19 AM, Bosco685 said:

If you read the article reference I posted when you get a chance, you will find out Sony owned the merchandising rights up to Nov-2011. That is when Disney purchased it from them.

I did, which is why I referred to it multiple times in the two paragraphs you didn't quote.

[Bosco685]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:30 AM, fantastic_four said:

I did, which is why I referred to it multiple times in the two paragraphs you didn't quote.

Well if you go back with a few of your posts, you noted Sony and Fox didn't own the merchandising rights. Which with the former would be incorrect. So you changed it up as you went along.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/15/2023 at 10:53 PM, fantastic_four said:

If they cancelled the comics because they were huge sales duds then why did they immediately re-start all of them after they bought Fox?  I mean I was PRETTY sure that they were freezing Fox out from 2014 to 2018, but the fact that everything quickly restarted after Disney bought Fox seemed to confirm the hypothesis. 

I see that. The timing is extremely suspicious. I'm not saying they didn't. It more than looks like they DID.

On 12/15/2023 at 10:53 PM, fantastic_four said:

Also they did NOT make Wolverine comics from 2014 to 2018.  They killed the character off in 2014, then resurrected him right after Disney had the Fox deal in the bag--and I do mean RIGHT after, as in after Fox agreed to the deal but not before it had completely gone through.

And yet they did an Old Man Logan comic and an All-New Wolverine (only with X-23 as the new Wolverine) leading into Fox making the Logan (2017) movie with 'Old Man' Logan and X-23. Weird.

On 12/15/2023 at 10:53 PM, fantastic_four said:

I agree with Buzzetta that the call to freeze out Fox was almost certainly Ike Perlmutter's idea.  I've never seen Kevin Feige do anything quite so cutthroat or devious.

Yeah, most likely. I'd agree with that as well. 

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.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Prince Namor

[fantastic_four]

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.

I don't either given Trank's meltdown during production.  Something between him and Fox, or maybe just with him, "tranked" that film.

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

And yet they did an Old Man Logan comic and an All-New Wolverine (only with X-23 as the new Wolverine) leading into Fox making the Logan (2017) movie with 'Old Man' Logan and X-23. Weird.

Totally weird.  If Perlmutter was going to the mattresses against Fox you'd think he would have never allowed those to print.  

But I never understood the strategy much anyway.  I TOTALLY got him not allowing authors to create new mutant characters that Fox would get the movie rights to for free, but did shutting down comics really achieve much?  FF I got for the reasons you outlined with low sales, but did killing Wolverine really do much?  For the most part the comic and film audiences are separate, and I doubt many people skipped Days of Future Past or Logan just because Marvel killed Logan in the comics.  

[VintageComics]

On 12/15/2023 at 10:53 AM, fantastic_four said:

If they cancelled the comics because they were huge sales duds then why did they immediately re-start all of them after they bought Fox?  I mean I was PRETTY sure that they were freezing Fox out from 2014 to 2018, but the fact that everything quickly restarted after Disney bought Fox seemed to confirm the hypothesis.  Also they did NOT make Wolverine comics from 2014 to 2018.  They killed the character off in 2014, then resurrected him right after Disney had the Fox deal in the bag--and I do mean RIGHT after, as in after Fox agreed to the deal but not before it had completely gone through.

I agree with Buzzetta that the call to freeze out Fox was almost certainly Ike Perlmutter's idea.  I've never seen Kevin Feige do anything quite so cutthroat or devious.

So you're saying that outside corporate involvement (Disney) affected the final art form (comics). 

Not directed at you at all, but I'm so glad that after many months of people arguing, tearing their garments in protest, wrangling and personal mud-slinging that everyone can finally agree. 

Halle-freaking-lujah! 

Edited December 15, 2023 by VintageComics

[Prince Namor]

On 12/16/2023 at 12:04 AM, fantastic_four said:

I don't either given Trank's meltdown during production.  Something between him and Fox, or maybe just with him, "tranked" that film.

Totally weird.  If Perlmutter was going to the mattresses against Fox you'd think he would have never allowed those to print.  

But I never understood the strategy much anyway.  I TOTALLY got him not allowing authors to create new mutant characters that Fox would get the movie rights to for free, but did shutting down comics really achieve much?  FF I got for the reasons you outlined with low sales, but did killing Wolverine really do much?  For the most part the comic and film audiences are separate, and I doubt many people skipped Days of Future Past or Logan just because Marvel killed Logan in the comics.  

Exactly.

And that's why I had some doubts or issues with the idea that Marvel was 'Trying very HARD on a Biblical Scale to DESTROY the FF film' as some have outlined here.

The Death of Wolverine was a COMIC BOOK success for Marvel in temporary sales. In a time when most regular, popular monthly comics fall between 75,000 and 35,000 monthly sales, it sold 261,000 for #1 and 129,000 - 141,000 - 165,000 for #2, 3, and 4 and Marvel spun off multiple 'replacement Wolverine' titles in it's aftermath.

But it had no bearing on the movies - as you point out, those audiences are separate. The vast, vast majority of people who saw Logan (2017) have no clue about the Death of Wolverine series or Old Man Logan or what's going on in comics at all.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/16/2023 at 12:21 AM, VintageComics said:

So you're saying that outside corporate involvement (Disney) affected the final art form (comics). 

Not directed at you at all, but I'm so glad that after many months of people arguing, tearing their garments in protest, wrangling and personal mud-slinging that everyone can finally agree. 

That's NOT what you were arguing and everyone here can see right through this. You said ESG was forcing Disney to change content.

That's a completely separate discussion.

OF COURSE Disney has their guidelines and requirements for their $4 BILLION investment. No one was denying that EVER.

Really Roy, that's as disingenuous as it gets.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Bosco685]

On 12/15/2023 at 7:05 PM, Prince Namor said:

And that's why I had some doubts or issues with the idea that Marvel was 'Trying very HARD on a Biblical Scale to DESTROY the FF film' as some have outlined here.

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.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/16/2023 at 7:56 AM, 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.

X-Men had been lagging in sales for years. 

2005: Uncanny X-Men - 87,610

2010: Uncanny X-Men - 69,052

2011: Uncanny X-Men - 61,095 (this was 17 issues into the reboot)

2013: Uncanny X-Men - between 65-70,000

2015 - the month Star Wars #1 comes out - 48,824

2016 - March - just before the DC Reboot - 45,887 (issue #4 of yet another reboot)

2016 - After the DC reboot - 42,779

 

Would new characters and more promotion have benefitted it from Star Wars and DC's New Universe sales, and Marvel's constant rebooting and variant happy sales tactics? I don't think so.

 

Also consider:

Death of Wolverine was a huge success. 

Star Wars, the first issue of which sold better than anything Marvel had published in years - 985,000 for #1, 162,000 for #2 - still at 110,000 a month one year in. It very obviously became a FOCUS. Why not? It had saved the company once... X-men on its OWN was no longer the BIG seller that it once was. STEADY, but not a sales giant. 

All-New X-Men and Uncanny X-Men remained in the Top 20 most months in sales during this whole time period. From 2014 - 2016 when it was immediately rebooted but still petered out after 19 issues. 

Was it the underhanded wrangling of corporate espionage?

Most likely it was Marvel pushing sales giant Star Wars and DC saturating the market with their reboot of the entire line in the DC Universe Reboot. They held 17 of the Top 19 spots and pushed everything down. The sad difference between the 90's and the 2010's is that many smaller retailers - when faced with buying MORE product for their store - now sacrifice other titles to do it. X-Men felt that.

Between the company focus on Star Wars and DC's massive reboot of their entire line... a lot got pushed to the side.

On 12/16/2023 at 7:56 AM, Bosco685 said:

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.

I still don't think canceling a comic book or putting a hold on comic character creation is anything that made a difference. 40,000 people to a movie that reaches millions, just... the comic market just isn't a thing.

I totally agree about Fox Studios though. They mishandled so much of what they had.

On 12/16/2023 at 7:56 AM, Bosco685 said:

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.

Then why were the X-Men movies and Wolverine movies and Deadpool movies so successful? Why didn't they suffer the same fate as the FF movie? Because there was no FF comic book??? 

C'mon man, that's ridiculous. 

[Prince Namor]

Again, I tend to believe Perlmutter had an interest in canceling the FF or putting a hold on mutant character creation (and even a hold on toys) as a big middle finger to Fox - but it made PERFECT BUSINESS SENSE.

The idea that Perlmutter was trying to 'destroy the FF movie on a biblical scale' is hyperbole. He made a decision that was GOOD for business overall and realistically equated to a teenage girl blocking her cheating boyfriend on Facebook. 

If you ask retailers, many will tell you... by 2010, the X-men titles had lost steam. People just weren't buying it the way they used to. Marvel rebooted Uncanny X-Men FOUR times from 2012-2019 to try and breathe life into it. That's NOT an example of ignoring it. 

[Prince Namor]

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.

[Bosco685]

On 12/15/2023 at 9:27 PM, Prince Namor said:

X-Men had been lagging in sales for years. 

2005: Uncanny X-Men - 87,610

2010: Uncanny X-Men - 69,052

2011: Uncanny X-Men - 61,095 (this was 17 issues into the reboot)

2013: Uncanny X-Men - between 65-70,000

2015 - the month Star Wars #1 comes out - 48,824

2016 - March - just before the DC Reboot - 45,887 (issue #4 of yet another reboot)

2016 - After the DC reboot - 42,779

 

Would new characters and more promotion have benefitted it from Star Wars and DC's New Universe sales, and Marvel's constant rebooting and variant happy sales tactics? I don't think so.

 

Also consider:

Death of Wolverine was a huge success. 

Star Wars, the first issue of which sold better than anything Marvel had published in years - 985,000 for #1, 162,000 for #2 - still at 110,000 a month one year in. It very obviously became a FOCUS. Why not? It had saved the company once... X-men on its OWN was no longer the BIG seller that it once was. STEADY, but not a sales giant. 

All-New X-Men and Uncanny X-Men remained in the Top 20 most months in sales during this whole time period. From 2014 - 2016 when it was immediately rebooted but still petered out after 19 issues. 

Was it the underhanded wrangling of corporate espionage?

Most likely it was Marvel pushing sales giant Star Wars and DC saturating the market with their reboot of the entire line in the DC Universe Reboot. They held 17 of the Top 19 spots and pushed everything down. The sad difference between the 90's and the 2010's is that many smaller retailers - when faced with buying MORE product for their store - now sacrifice other titles to do it. X-Men felt that.

Between the company focus on Star Wars and DC's massive reboot of their entire line... a lot got pushed to the side.

I still don't think canceling a comic book or putting a hold on comic character creation is anything that made a difference. 40,000 people to a movie that reaches millions, just... the comic market just isn't a thing.

I totally agree about Fox Studios though. They mishandled so much of what they had.

Then why were the X-Men movies and Wolverine movies and Deadpool movies so successful? Why didn't they suffer the same fate as the FF movie? Because there was no FF comic book??? 

C'mon man, that's ridiculous. 

If you say so.

Meanwhile, Chris Claremont and other insiders were passing along to reporters edicts that were being passed down from Ike Perlmutter. Which is consistent with what Kevin Feige experienced to the point he went to Bob Iger to convey he would leave if things didn't change. Leading to the disbandment of the Marvel Creative Committee (MCC) and Feige reporting to Bob Iger via Alan Horn.

The Real Reasons For Marvel's 2015 Split

Twisting what has been posted here with factual reports (merchandising and comic books cancelled and promotions withdrawn) as being the root cause for movies failing gives you comfort - have at it. That is not what was stated. Ike Perlmutter's personality and approach has been well documented. Including his toy line decisioning and emails to Sony execs why female-led films were losing propositions which came out in the 2014 North Korea hack of Sony.

Sorry you purposely ignore all these facts. But they are exactly that - facts. That's ridiculous to ignore. But your cross to bear.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/16/2023 at 4:23 PM, Bosco685 said:

If you say so.

Meanwhile, Chris Claremont and other insiders were passing along to reporters edicts that were being passed down from Ike Perlmutter. Which is consistent with what Kevin Feige experienced to the point he went to Bob Iger to convey he would leave if things didn't change. Leading to the disbandment of the Marvel Creative Committee (MCC) and Feige reporting to Bob Iger via Alan Horn.

The Real Reasons For Marvel's 2015 Split

Twisting what has been posted here with factual reports (merchandising and comic books cancelled and promotions withdrawn) as being the root cause for movies failing gives you comfort - have at it. That is not what was stated. Ike Perlmutter's personality and approach has been well documented. Including his toy line decisioning and emails to Sony execs why female-led films were losing propositions which came out in the 2014 North Korea hack of Sony.

Sorry you purposely ignore all these facts. But they are exactly that - facts. That's ridiculous to ignore. But your cross to bear.

Everyone agrees that Ike most likely said to cancel the book - cancel the toys. That's not being questioned at all now.

What his complete motivation was, IS at question, but no one could answer that but Ike.

I questioned that Roy framed it as Disney and Marvel worked VERY HARD to destroy the franchise and that it was  a corporate war going on of Biblical proportions over that franchise.

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.

The X-Men: Apocalypse movie did over half a Billion Worldwide. Deadpool and Logan would be an even bigger success. Only the Fantastic Four movie was a huge disappointment.

The movie had a lot of pre-production controversy, but the trailer became the most-watched trailer in 20th Century Fox's history, surpassing the previous record-holder, 2014's X-Men: Days of Future Past. The entire cast was at SDCC to promote the movie a few weeks before it came out. It had everything it needed to be a success.

Ultimately though, the critics HATED it. And people didn't go see it. 

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. 

That movie failed because it sucked. Even now, looking at it after all is said and done - the movie is NOT good. Side by side with X-Men: Apocalypse - itself, not exactly the best X-Men movie - the mutant movie is light years better in every way. The Box Office, in THIS instance at least, just plain and simply reflects that.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Bosco685]

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

Everyone agrees that Ike most likely said to cancel the book - cancel the toys. That's not being questioned at all now.

What his complete motivation was, IS at question, but no one could answer that but Ike.

I questioned that Roy framed it as Disney and Marvel worked VERY HARD to destroy the franchise and that it was  a corporate war going on of Biblical proportions over that franchise.

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.

The X-Men: Apocalypse movie did over half a Billion Worldwide. Deadpool and Logan would be an even bigger success. Only the Fantastic Four movie was a huge disappointment.

The movie had a lot of pre-production controversy, but the trailer became the most-watched trailer in 20th Century Fox's history, surpassing the previous record-holder, 2014's X-Men: Days of Future Past. The entire cast was at SDCC to promote the movie a few weeks before it came out. It had everything it needed to be a success.

Ultimately though, the critics HATED it. And people didn't go see it. 

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. 

That movie failed because it sucked. Even now, looking at it after all is said and done - the movie is NOT good. Side by side with X-Men: Apocalypse - itself, not exactly the best X-Men movie - the mutant movie is light years better in every way. The Box Office, in THIS instance at least, just plain and simply reflects that.

You are again distracting from the original point - but admitting to the fact Marvel Entertainment/Ike Perlmutter waged a campaign assuming they could disrupt Fox Studios' Marvel plans. That was the point the entire time you tried to dismiss.

Glad to see you finally got there through hills and dales of many paragraphs to avoid the facts. Aren't you glad to have me off ignore again after your big public announcement of yet again placing me on ignore?

[Prince Namor]

On 12/16/2023 at 6:24 PM, Bosco685 said:

You are again distracting from the original point - but admitting to the fact Marvel Entertainment/Ike Perlmutter waged a campaign assuming they could disrupt Fox Studios' Marvel plans. That was the point the entire time you tried to dismiss.

Glad to see you finally got there through hills and dales of many paragraphs to avoid the facts. Aren't you glad to have me off ignore again after your big public announcement of yet again placing me on ignore?

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.