[Jmacq1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflakian

That's a business analyst, not marvel or disney themselves. So it is still speculation.

It's still a source from a legitimate media outlet. I'd wager a "business analyst" knows more about what's going on behind the scenes than YOU do.

Quote:

Sony gave the animation rights back as a bid to keep the movie rights for spider-man to play nice with disney, because they were afraid Disney would take back the rights. Fox never fretted losing the rights, but since your link pointed out it's the same contract, if sony had the chance of losing it, and was actively trying to appease disney to avoid that, it's safe to say fox would have had the same issue.

Not a single one of your quoted sources backs up the bolded statement above. I don't think you understand what "concession" means. It could very well mean that Marvel agreed to give Sony the use of a character they initially didn't have the rights for. It in NO WAY implies that Sony was in ANY danger of losing the live-action Spider-Man rights. Try again.

Quote:

As for X-Men, you have to go no further than marvel.com itself.
Calling All X-Perts! | X-Men | Movie & TV News | News | Marvel.com
On top of the marketing, you'll also see hundreds of more marvel entries about being excited about it, and how they've helped. Marvel will even defend the older brother/father Havok as Ultimate X-Men itself has Havok being older, and many other stories in the multiverse where they aren't even related.

Both of those are straight from the horse's mouth, not side analysts who are guessing what marvel or disney think or want.

If you add X-Men: First Class | Movies | Movies & TV | Marvel.com to your RSS feeder, or other news aggregator you can stay on top of that too.

Learn to read complete posts. Let me quote for you again since you seem to keep harping on a point that I have not implied or made:

I didn't say diddly-squat about whether or not Marvel was "excited" for the film.

Of course Marvel is going to make at least a token effort to promote the film, because there is the chance of crossover profits via trade paperbacks being sold, etc... Doing otherwise would be foolish. The movie amounts to free advertising for Marvel comics (even if it's not particularly faithful).

Quote:

If you look up small faces, you'll see the 'insider remarks' at first then direct quotes from marvel about why they've pushed it back. Which was because they have so many features in the works as is, they need to slow down development or be overwhelmed and oversaturate the market. If you look up the announcements for Black Panther, Dr. Strange, Luke Cage, Ironfist, and all the others, you can see a common thread of not having to do Spider-man and X-Men has allowed them to explore other lesser known characters and make them be even more profitable than the rights the others have. So not having those two has actually helped them since they still make money off of whatever sony or Fox do, and are cashing majorly on their own wealth of characters without using the mainstays.

Marvel Studios Slows Down ‘Runaways’ – Deadline.com Insider remarks since it was the first mention. Following articles to that go into more detail with actual quotes.

Marvel themselves has said their slate is full. If you continue on looking up about Small Faces/Runaways.

Aaaaaand once again. Please provide ANY statement that says Marvel is "indifferent" to regaining their movie rights to Spider-Man and X-Men. A single one will suffice. Except you won't find it.

I guaran-damn-tee you (again) that if Spider-Man and X-Men landed back at Disney/Marvel, they would gladly shove EVERYTHING except the Avengers stuff aside to start producing films based on them. The "royalties" you speak of are a tiny pittance compared to the direct profits they could make from those films (especially in the case of Spider-Man). Indeed, it's not even clear if Marvel DOES make royalties on the Spider-Man and X-Men films. It is entirely possible that the rights were sold for nothing but a licensing fee, particularly since the movie rights were initially sold when Marvel Entertainment was trying to recover from bankruptcy and was basically desperate for an influx of immediate cash. The general industry analysis that Marvel effectively "gave away" those movie rights would certainly support this.

Quote:

You have to balance release schedule alongside saturation. Could disney release a movie every month of marvel? Sure. But it would overwhelm the market to the point of not being profitable. As for idiotic to not want them back, that's a fallacy in itself. Marvel gets paid for the X-Men movies still in royalties. Yet don't have to pay to make the movies. Yeah I'd say it's an even break there. Ditto to spider-man with Avi Arad. Considering how much they pale in comparison to what the avengers line up is making anyway. So yes, Ant-Man would stay, while X-Men etc would be on hold. The movies before it have already proven more profitable than the X-Franchise as a whole. Thor even has already outperformed the opening weekend of Wolverine, and the final results from the weekend aren't even posted. Meaning it's still missing a day from the total results.

Try again...X-Men Origins: Wolverine outperformed Thor by about $20 million dollars on opening weekend ($66 million vs. $85 million). If you factor in inflation and factor out the "3D bump" Thor is performing worse than any of the X-Men films to date. That's not to say it's performing poorly, but the X-Men films do better. Also "profitable" is a funny word, since you have to account for production costs vs. box office grosses. You cannot say with any certainty that the Marvel Studios films as a whole have been more profitable than X-Men, because X-Men may well have lower production costs than the more recent Marvel fare. And you ABSOLUTELY cannot argue that Spider-Man is less profitable if you're going by straight grosses. Spider-Man has made over a billion dollars in domestic grosses in just three films (not even counting international). You honestly think Marvel Studios would rather make a pittance on royalties (if they're even getting royalties, see above) rather than the direct profits?

Quote:

Everything I had said was common knowledge straight from marvel, disney, fox, and sony if you followed the movie news about the projects being developed instead of the speculation. So yes, Marvel/Disney is indifferent to it, and if they wanted them back, could get them back. Disney is great at that as history has proven. This is why Sony opted to give the animation rights back as a gesture of good faith to keep the movie rights. When in the long run, they could have just outright lost both if Disney pushed the issue.

FALSE. Your source in no way has proven this. "Concession" in no way makes it a certainty that Sony was in any danger of losing the Spider-Man franchise. Your statement continues to show a complete ignorance of how the licensing agreements work, and your continual dismissal of "industry analysis" shows that you apparently think you personally are in a better position to assess the situation despite your suppositions being in contradiction to EVERY "market analysis" out there. Somehow, I doubt that.

Quote:

And if you want proof about how marvel writers don't care about continuity, you can look no further than heroes when Jeph Loeb started writing for it.

I haven't said jack-shit about continuity. Why do you keep bringing up issues that I haven't mentioned at all?

Quote:

As for X-Men being profitable, it is if the budget is under control, but the avengers line up of movies is by far more profitable(which all these side character movies will tie into within the Marvel-19999 universe). Ironman 1 and 2 did far better than all the x-men movies (including XMO:Wolverine)combined to date.

WRONG: Apparently math isn't your strong point - X-Men franchise as a whole? $786.5 million domestic box office. Iron Man? $630.8 million domestic. Both of these are before inflation. Apparently you've managed to conjure up about $150 million dollars for Iron Man that doesn't exist. Source

Quote:

Thor is on pace to do about as well.

"About as well" as what? It sure as hell isn't going to do Iron Man numbers. And it's lagging about $20 million behind XMO: Wolverine at this point.

Quote:

So yes, marvel has proven they can make more profitable movies than Fox or Sony without using Spider-man or X-Men.

So no, they haven't, unless you invent new kinds of math.

Quote:

It is illogical to think that fox wouldn't give up the rights if it was no longer profitable. If they make enough consecutive flops, they would view the rights as not worth it as they are paying more to make these movies than they are making from them. That's just not smart business. (The reason the punisher rights went back to marvel even as well, which led to them doing War Zone.)

Thank you for re-iterating a point I already made. The only way the X-Men rights are going back to Marvel is if they're run into the ground to the point of unprofitability. Same with Spider-Man at Sony.

Quote:

As it is, Fox is pretty hands off while they are made, as opposed to sony who does interfere with spider-man. Heck even Avi Arad recently tweeted that the new spider-man isn't a reboot. (when it obviously is, BCN covered it, as did other comic outlets.) So if Disney really wanted the rights back, they could throw a hefty enough wad of cash to get them back.

Fox is pretty "hands off" with X-Men? Did you miss the debacle with Bryan Singer and X-Men 3? How many directors did XMO: Wolverine have before it finally got made? Where is Disney going to magically conjure up the BILLION dollars+ required to "throw the hefty wad of cash" at Fox for the rights? You have an incredibly naive and uninformed view of the business world, or an amazingly optimistic view of how much cash Disney has just lying around.

Quote:

Just as they did to paramount to get the distro for the avengers series after thor and cap. Considering how much Fantastic 4 and Daredevil/Elektra didn't make, I can say with confidence that if the price tag to buy them back was right, they'd consider it, and go for it. Those two properties alone haven't turned out to be all that profitable movie-wise. Which is the only rights they have for them. (Again BoxOfficeMojo, and if you want further info you can look up the contracts themselves.) Even at 42million, elektra didnt make it's budget back. Bringing in only 24 Million. Low budget films still cost, and if they don't sell and make the money back, it's a bust, and in turn hurts stock/shareholders and effects the bottomline. In fact, if the new reboots of those two franchises don't profit, we'll probably start seeing articles of those studio's wanting marvel to buy them back so they can at least profit on the buyback. Would disney pay a hefty fee? Considering how much the marvel movies have made under marvel, if they felt they could make more than the royalties yield, they would pay out the hefty price for the long term payout benefit. (pay a billion now, for several billion later? That's a no brainer.)

Only if you have the billion to spend. Considering they shelled out 4 billion for Marvel not all that long ago (in a business sense), that's not all that likely.

Quote:

Blah Blah Blah

Whatever, you've clearly decided to wallow in your ignorance. I'll leave you to it.