[warmachine6]

hello , all
just occured to me that the x-men first class film was out a while ago and they normally release toys like GL , Captain America but no X-men first class ?
i was hopeing for a decent emma frost figure instead of hasbros lame version :L (ML by the way)
what are your thoughts on this ?
warmachine6

[vampireheart]

They released Mini-Mates I don't care much for the movie so having no Joe size or 6" figures to accompany it doesnt really bug me

[brianregan09]

there is 2 sets of first class comic packs alryt bt there based n da comics

[Tarquinius]

Hasbro speculated that there may be more, but considering the upcoming comic packs it may either be a while or may not be coming at all.

Some people also wonder if the iceman from the last 2011 wave will be firstclass bobby

[Nexodusrex]

they had the X-Men comic packs, and the Wolverine Roleplay Claws recolored in X-Men First Class packaging. What more do you want? lol

[Jmacq1]

Hasbro already had a crowded summer with Captain America, Thor, and Transformers 3. Between that and First-Class having a REALLY rushed production schedule that didn't really give Hasbro time to develop a toyline around it, no direct tie-in toys were made...just some old ones repackaged as an indirect tie-in.

[stjuggernaut]

its a shame they didnt get a toyline together for this. the only ones i would have bought are probably beast and azazel and of course emma frost!

the guy who played banshee made me feel a little ill to look at.

[mrmr]

I think First Class would have been an amazing opportunity for Hasbro to have an x-men specific line of figures. Say what you will about the Wolverine line, but I bought the hell out of those.

For sure I would have gotten Shaw, Frost, Beast, Havok, and Azazel. Not to mention if they'd done a comic series like CA and IM.

[Deefuzz]

On the high end side of the spectrum, Hot Toys has the license but they have yet to reveal what exactly from X-Men First Class they will be doing.

[Nexodusrex]

I think what hasbro will do is pepper MU next year with a couple first class characters, like they did with Marvel legends and peppering it with X-Men 3 characters. Except these will be their comic book versions. I expect beast and emma and rereleases of Mystique and Havok within the next 12 months

[NerfTW]

Yeah, as mentioned, X-men first class was extremely rushed. Just over a year for the latest script/director combo. There was no way Hasbro would have been able to get new figure molds into production that quickly. That's why all you see are the two repaint comic packs.

Plus, they'd be competing with Captain America, Thor, and Transformers 3, (All Hasbro properties, btw) which would have just been suicide for the line, especially given how badly most of the X-men related movies have bombed at the box office. You'll notice Thor is similarly lacking in a comic line as well.

Not to mention these weren't exactly A-listers. White Queen maaaaaaaaaaybeee, but I've heard more than one person call her obscure. Also, she has the female stigma to deal with. Other than Magneto, Beast, and Xavier, everyone else is extremely obscure to the average kid. Expecting both a movie and comic version to sell would have been ridiculous.

I think we were a little spoiled with the Woverine, Iron Man, and Cap comic waves, but realistically, the property has to be able to support both the comic and the actual movie figures, and not a lot of movies can say that. I think Cap only squeaked through because most of the comic line are more "Captain America outfits" to the average person than separate characters. (I think Crossbones and Winter Soldier would be the only two that aren't a form of Cap, including Captain Britain)


edit- and I forgot that X-men is still a Fox Sony property, not Marvel Studios, and we know the only reason they're making movies is to hang onto the licenses for X-men, Spider-man, Daredevil, etc. So after all that marketing speculation, I forgot the simplest reason: Fox Sony wasn't trying to make money on this film, they were just trying to keep the license so they can do more Wolverine stuff.

[Nexodusrex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NerfTW

edit- and I forgot that X-men is still a Fox property, not Marvel Studios, and we know the only reason they're making movies is to hang onto the licenses for X-men, Spider-man, Daredevil, etc. So after all that marketing speculation, I forgot the simplest reason: Fox wasn't trying to make money on this film, they were just trying to keep the license so they can do more Wolverine stuff.

Actually Sony owns the Spidey movies. As for the film being rushed to keep the license, I honestly dont mind cause that movie was awesome!

[NerfTW]

whoops. Fixed that. :P

[Nexodusrex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NerfTW

whoops. Fixed that. :P

nonono :P X-Men, F4, and Daredevil is Fox
Spiderman and Ghost RIder is Sony

[Jmacq1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NerfTW

Plus, they'd be competing with Captain America, Thor, and Transformers 3, (All Hasbro properties, btw) which would have just been suicide for the line, especially given how badly most of the X-men related movies have bombed at the box office. You'll notice Thor is similarly lacking in a comic line as well.

Uh...what? The X-Men films have all been considered solid "hits" if not outright blockbusters in terms of box office take. The franchise has made nearly a billion dollars in box office receipts between 5 films. Don't confuse the fan perception of X3 and XMO: Wolverine with their actual financial success.

[Snowflakian]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NerfTW

edit- and I forgot that X-men is still a Fox property, not Marvel Studios, and we know the only reason they're making movies is to hang onto the licenses for X-men, Spider-man, Daredevil, etc. So after all that marketing speculation, I forgot the simplest reason: Fox wasn't trying to make money on this film, they were just trying to keep the license so they can do more Wolverine stuff.

As stated above, Spider-Man is Sony.
Also, while Fox does want to hold onto the properties, they want successful movies, not just a means to keep the rights. This is a company, and their main goal is to make money, not lose money. Deliberately making a bad movie is how you lose money. That's been refuted before, but the headline wasn't as catchy and many outlets intentionally missed it as not being something fans want to hear. The IESB report fuels the fan fires though, so it keeps getting touted as the flagship insider report despite being disproven on record, at least on the intentionally bad movie front(Marvel had also gone on record to say they had no plans to even attempt to get the rights back, so this histeria is entirely fan driven). Sony themselves also worked out something with Disney. Giving them back the animation rights of Spider-Man in a bid to not have a fight over the movie rights. The main problem being the iesb report had spread like wildfire, whereas when it was refuted was such a tiny headline it's impossible to google for unless you favorited it when it first popped up in headlines. That also begs the question do you trust someone willing to go on record as a representative of the company, over an anonymous source who takes no fallout from any comments said. It goes back and forth with hollywood politics. Hollywood politics are also something Marvel themselves aren't that good at just yet. Which you can see looking at the Terrence Howard debacle, as well as the Edward Norton debacle. Marvel has a tendency to burn bridges but be forgiven for it because of the wealth of childhood heroes of actors and actresses they are in control of. Just as we often turn a blind eye to their mistreatment of their own properties, alongside the rampant idea and concept theft they do because we also grew up with these characters and have on glasses of blind fan worship.

There is proof to it though when you look at the rights. In particular Marvel fighting the original creators over the rights. If they really wanted the rights back from film companies, they'd let the rights go to the original creators with a contract stipulation of selling them back only to Marvel, which in turn would circumvent any movie contracts, as the rights would have been considered never Marvel's to have sold in the first place. With Disney backing them on this course of action, they could effectively null and void any current movie contracts. Then again though, that'd mean they'd have to pay back the royalties to the creators those movies brought in... Oh wait, that's right. Marvel doesn't have to pony up any money at all for those movies to have been made, and reaps the benefits through the royalties... Hmm, this seems like it's much more complicated than what one 'insider' headline would lead you to believe it is. Disney Marvel will get the rights back eventually, but to say they can make better movies than Fox or sony is hit or miss. Some characters they could, others I doubt there'd be any real change whatsoever. Then again though, I'm not fond of Marvel's business practices either when it comes to rights and similiar concept theft. We tend to be blinded by fan glasses, but one company really isn't any better than another when you boil it down. You don't have to look any farther than how they mistreat their own characters in comics. (Stuff that personally makes me scratch my head how Marvel Editorial could okay it. Stuff that proves they are just as bad as the companies they allegedly dislike for 'legally' stealing their characters and mistreating them. It really is just bickering over who can have the more proceeds from the films in question, not who can make it better.) In all of this, at least you can see that Sony cares about the characters and has a willingness to work with Marvel for good will, as they've also had employees, not higher ups, going on record about this Marvel vis-a-vis quid pro quo. So really when you break all this down. It's all about money, and who can have the biggest piece of the pie, and not about any alleged integrity reasons that are used to fluff those reasons. It always was, and always will be about money. If you want another example of Marvel messing up properties, take a look at the nosedive Heroes made and all the continuity errors after they let Jeph Loeb start writing it. Plus the legal battle over a show called Mutant X. Even Marvel's attempt to copyright the word 'mutant' itself. So yeah, it definitely just boils down to money on all sides, and not character integrity as they so claim. (I'm also reminded of how bad some of the 70s marvel movies were, and those didn't even have the rights issues these current ones do. Captain America and Captain America 2 in particular. Though I did enjoy the 90s one and the 70s Dr. Strange.)

As for a toyline, yeah as others stated the turn around was too soon to do it.
With Cap(easy to push under the current patriotic histeria in USA) and Thor(unproven as a standalone line, hence no campy costumed comic line and sole focus on Title and movie characters) already on shelves alongside IM2 and MU, it's better to just wait for the next X-Men/wolverine film and load it down with both. After the recent bombing of the X-Men toon line, Hasbro may have felt it prudent to wait awhile and just filter in some comic characters into the MU line instead. With XFC already going to have sequels, one missed film won't hurt it. There will be a chance later again anyway. So there's no real rush for it now, as opposed to a year from now(when marvel's Avengers films will be consolidated into one line) and again the year after.

With next year's comic storylines allegedly being very X-Men heavy, we can probably expect more from MU, besides 'The Wolverine' film among others.

The question I want answered though, what are the licensing fees associated to using Fox titles on figures. There was a marginal mark up on merchandise using it compared to the normal lines.

[behindthemask]

I have 2 many toys and lines I'm trying to finish collecting I really don't want to see much in the line of merch until there's a lul of other figures. I would like to see some of the characters made such as beast,emma frost, havock, etc... they're all characters we want for the most part, but frankly Wolverine is 75% of what drives xmen sales, and he wasn't in the movie so no wolvie toys puts the sales pressure on a lot lesser known characters atleast by novice fans and kids stand point. By placing the marketing pressure on lesser known characters you take a huge risk in the line not being profitable and huge giant companies aren't exactly about being non profit organizations! I say we may get some figures from the movie in random MU assortments in the near future or possibly a box set. But I'm still trying to collect em all, so lots of holes for me to fill before I even consider getting a new line going.

[Optimus Vader]

They should just work some of these characters into MU if they can't/didn't want to have a toyline. It's a shame they skipped this one though because out of all of the summer "comic types" released so far (Thor, Xmen, GL, TF's) I think First Class was a bit of a sleeper. It was definitely my favorite out of those four.

[firmpulse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflakian

As stated above, Spider-Man is Sony.
Also, while Fox does want to hold onto the properties, they want successful movies, not just a means to keep the rights. This is a company, and their main goal is to make money, not lose money. Deliberately making a bad movie is how you lose money. That's been refuted before, but the headline wasn't as catchy and many outlets intentionally missed it as not being something fans want to hear. The IESB report fuels the fan fires though, so it keeps getting touted as the flagship insider report despite being disproven on record, at least on the intentionally bad movie front(Marvel had also gone on record to say they had no plans to even attempt to get the rights back, so this histeria is entirely fan driven). Sony themselves also worked out something with Disney. Giving them back the animation rights of Spider-Man in a bid to not have a fight over the movie rights. The main problem being the iesb report had spread like wildfire, whereas when it was refuted was such a tiny headline it's impossible to google for unless you favorited it when it first popped up in headlines. That also begs the question do you trust someone willing to go on record as a representative of the company, over an anonymous source who takes no fallout from any comments said. It goes back and forth with hollywood politics. Hollywood politics are also something Marvel themselves aren't that good at just yet. Which you can see looking at the Terrence Howard debacle, as well as the Edward Norton debacle. Marvel has a tendency to burn bridges but be forgiven for it because of the wealth of childhood heroes of actors and actresses they are in control of. Just as we often turn a blind eye to their mistreatment of their own properties, alongside the rampant idea and concept theft they do because we also grew up with these characters and have on glasses of blind fan worship.

There is proof to it though when you look at the rights. In particular Marvel fighting the original creators over the rights. If they really wanted the rights back from film companies, they'd let the rights go to the original creators with a contract stipulation of selling them back only to Marvel, which in turn would circumvent any movie contracts, as the rights would have been considered never Marvel's to have sold in the first place. With Disney backing them on this course of action, they could effectively null and void any current movie contracts. Then again though, that'd mean they'd have to pay back the royalties to the creators those movies brought in... Oh wait, that's right. Marvel doesn't have to pony up any money at all for those movies to have been made, and reaps the benefits through the royalties... Hmm, this seems like it's much more complicated than what one 'insider' headline would lead you to believe it is. Disney Marvel will get the rights back eventually, but to say they can make better movies than Fox or sony is hit or miss. Some characters they could, others I doubt there'd be any real change whatsoever. Then again though, I'm not fond of Marvel's business practices either when it comes to rights and similiar concept theft. We tend to be blinded by fan glasses, but one company really isn't any better than another when you boil it down. You don't have to look any farther than how they mistreat their own characters in comics. (Stuff that personally makes me scratch my head how Marvel Editorial could okay it. Stuff that proves they are just as bad as the companies they allegedly dislike for 'legally' stealing their characters and mistreating them. It really is just bickering over who can have the more proceeds from the films in question, not who can make it better.) In all of this, at least you can see that Sony cares about the characters and has a willingness to work with Marvel for good will, as they've also had employees, not higher ups, going on record about this Marvel vis-a-vis quid pro quo. So really when you break all this down. It's all about money, and who can have the biggest piece of the pie, and not about any alleged integrity reasons that are used to fluff those reasons. It always was, and always will be about money. If you want another example of Marvel messing up properties, take a look at the nosedive Heroes made and all the continuity errors after they let Jeph Loeb start writing it. Plus the legal battle over a show called Mutant X. Even Marvel's attempt to copyright the word 'mutant' itself. So yeah, it definitely just boils down to money on all sides, and not character integrity as they so claim. (I'm also reminded of how bad some of the 70s marvel movies were, and those didn't even have the rights issues these current ones do. Captain America and Captain America 2 in particular. Though I did enjoy the 90s one and the 70s Dr. Strange.)

As for a toyline, yeah as others stated the turn around was too soon to do it.
With Cap(easy to push under the current patriotic histeria in USA) and Thor(unproven as a standalone line, hence no campy costumed comic line and sole focus on Title and movie characters) already on shelves alongside IM2 and MU, it's better to just wait for the next X-Men/wolverine film and load it down with both. After the recent bombing of the X-Men toon line, Hasbro may have felt it prudent to wait awhile and just filter in some comic characters into the MU line instead. With XFC already going to have sequels, one missed film won't hurt it. There will be a chance later again anyway. So there's no real rush for it now, as opposed to a year from now(when marvel's Avengers films will be consolidated into one line) and again the year after.

With next year's comic storylines allegedly being very X-Men heavy, we can probably expect more from MU, besides 'The Wolverine' film among others.

The question I want answered though, what are the licensing fees associated to using Fox titles on figures. There was a marginal mark up on merchandise using it compared to the normal lines.

seems like i see you write this type of explanation every couple of months or so

[NerfTW]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflakian

*giant page of informative text*

That was extremely interesting. I did not know most of that, thank you.

[Jason Abbadon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stjuggernaut

its a shame they didnt get a toyline together for this. the only ones i would have bought are probably beast and azazel and of course emma frost!

the guy who played banshee made me feel a little ill to look at.

We'd all be complaining at how they look like the movie actors and not the comics versions- I certainly would be.

The characters dont look good in the movie to me- certainly not versions I could place with my MU figs.

[mrmr]

Hell, I'd like just a regular MU of Frost or Beast. Jesus Hasbro get on that.

[Aheld92]

I wouldn't mind a few First class figures but i would prefer comic versions of characters in the movie like Prof X, White Queen Emma Frost, Banshee, Beast, Darwin, Shaw, Riptide, Azazel, and new better versions of Magneto, Mystique and Havok. Although I'd LOVE a movie version of Azazel

[sevens]

This is something I've reiterated on several posts, but here I go again: I DEFINITELY prefer and only buy COMIC versions. I have an enormous collection of comic book characters, and personally have no desire at all to own figures of actors pretending to be comic book characters. I'll still go see the movies because I'm a big Marvel fan, but with the exception of Star Wars, I can't see myself ever spending money on movie based merchandise. Comic-based figures from a movie toy line are, of course, still fair game for me.

[DogFashionDisco]

I can't believe they passed on making an Azazel figure. It would have been a huge seller.