[behindthemask]

I have very mixed reviews about the film, however I like the odds of us getting some decent figures in scale with either MU and or ML from the film that haven't been created yet (more MU), Banshee, emma frost, xavier, magneto with a removable helmet,mystique,beast,some sort of red nightcrawler, pyro, etc... I feel these could be in line with the xmen movie figures of old, but they could adapt the 3 3/4 figures as well. I know MU is doing a release of tie ins for the film but nothing major. hope to see some more figures hit the mainstream market that don't completely suck lol. your thoughts?


link to the trailer where I noticed the red night cralwer :

[Dylan in Oregon]

That red dude is Azazel, Nightcrawler's dad. And hell yes I think he'd make a beast figure!

[Colder Soldier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan in Oregon

That red dude is Azazel, Nightcrawler's dad. And hell yes I think he'd make a beast figure!

So is Mystique still Nigjtcrawler's mom?

[Xsoldier]

yes Mystique is Nightcrawler's mom.

This line will not get toys. Marvel doesn't want the movie to succeed. They want fox to give up the rights so a decent X-film could finally be made. I think the MU line may focus more on X-men durring that time though. Do we even have a list of Wave 16 or 17?

[Snowflakian]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xsoldier

This line will not get toys. Marvel doesn't want the movie to succeed. They want fox to give up the rights so a decent X-film could finally be made. I think the MU line may focus more on X-men durring that time though. Do we even have a list of Wave 16 or 17?

That's just pure fan speculation and has zero basis in fact. Marvel supports the film, and it looks fine. The choice for no toys by hasbro was because of how much the movie was fast tracked at Fox(it was still being filmed up until last month, costumes weren't finalized until deep into the year, and the toy cycle is longer than that at hasbro compared to the far lower time for minimates), alongside the fact that there's already thor, cap, and MU on shelves, plus ironman staying on shelves. Marvel doesn't care, and disney doesn't either. They still get royalties from it either way (It still mirrors many Ultimate X-Men elements, and has its own universe designation anyway too). If they did care, they'd just buy the contract out from Fox, like they did the distro from Paramount after cap and thor. Even if they did though, they'd probably still keep Singer on board and have Vaughn direct so nothing would have changed. Besides, X-Men movies aren't the priority from Marvel right now. So if they bought the rights back, we wouldn't have one until possibly 2020 or so.

We may hopefully see some X-Men characters in MU around DVD time, I wouldn't expect them around the movie in theaters other than the giant size x-men box, and the two comic packs.

Hopefully a beast and Emma frost will come from it, but we'll see. The movie itself looks badass though with the newest trailers about havok, beast, mystique, and banshee.

As for Mystique being Nightcrawler's mom, that's unknown as yet(this isn't marvel-616, it's marvel-10005), but considering this movie has azazel which has been said to be Nightcrawlers father in the films too, as well as Mystique(which the films have only joked about being his mother in one offhanded remark), they may lay the groundwork for that with the sequel(s). Yes, XFC is setup to have a sequel, possibly even a trilogy before they go back to a real X4 movie. They also have plans for a new mutants movie still in the works. So the likelihood that Fox would give the rights back, or that marvel would want them back is zero. Marvel has too many films they are doing themselves as is, from avengers +sequels, to ironman +sequels, thor +sequels(maybe), cap +sequels, runaways (smallfaces), black panther, ironfist, luke cage, and even doctor strange. Other studios doing spider-man's universe and X-Men actually helps them since they can't do it themselves with the massive list they are working on bringing to the big screen.

There are no wave listings for waves 2011 wave 5+ (wave 16+). Not that it matters as the 2011 wave 3 (wave 14) won't hit until may/june followed by another revision wave or 2, then 2011 wave 4 (wave 15) in July/Aug/Sept. So a wave 5 won't be announced until SDCC, and won't hit shelves until probably around Sept/October/November. Which should be about the time this hits DVD.

[cainraw]

[QUOTE=behindthemask;118212]I have very mixed reviews about the film, however I like the odds of us getting some decent figures in scale with either MU and or ML from the film that haven't been created yet (more MU), Banshee, emma frost, xavier, magneto with a removable helmet,mystique,beast,some sort of red nightcrawler, pyro, etc... I feel these could be in line with the xmen movie figures of old, but they could adapt the 3 3/4 figures as well. I know MU is doing a release of tie ins for the film but nothing major. hope to see some more figures hit the mainstream market that don't completely suck lol. your thoughts?



You have very mixed reviews about a film that hasn't been released yet? Thats some fanboy idiocy at it's best. Wait until it comes out, then have an opinion. Until then, all you have is speculation. Based on trailers.

[Reaver Strike]

No toys will be made for first class other than the minimates. No figures were planned for this movie.

[MasterSock]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaver Strike

No toys will be made for first class other than the minimates. No figures were planned for this movie.

Their a 2 pack coming one with with wolverine and Sabretooth, another with cyclops and jean.
New "Celebrating X-Men 1st Class" Comic 2-Pack Images - Marvel - MarvelousNews.com <== Pics!

[Jmacq1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterSock

Their a 2 pack coming one with with wolverine and Sabretooth, another with cyclops and jean.
New "Celebrating X-Men 1st Class" Comic 2-Pack Images - Marvel - MarvelousNews.com <== Pics!

Even those barely qualify as movie tie-ins, if at all. They're based on the comics, not the movie(s).

Oh, and Marvel DOES want the rights to X-Men back, they just know they're not likely to get them anytime in the forseeable future so there's no point worrying about it. All told, Marvel has little or nothing to do with this film beyond having sold the rights to Fox.

[Snowflakian]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jmacq1

Even those barely qualify as movie tie-ins, if at all. They're based on the comics, not the movie(s).

Oh, and Marvel DOES want the rights to X-Men back, they just know they're not likely to get them anytime in the forseeable future so there's no point worrying about it. All told, Marvel has little or nothing to do with this film beyond having sold the rights to Fox.

Quote a source, because all I've ever seen is marvel saying they are excited about the film when asked etc. Vaughn and Singer have had discussions with marvel writers about this film too prior to filming.

Every fanboy keeps saying marvel wants the rights back, but honestly, all the comments they've said is they are indifferent about it. If they truly wanted the rights back, Disney could get them back.

Not that I'd be too thrilled with it in either hands. Marvel is about as good at making continuity mistakes and ignoring previous stories as Fox can be.

And again, like I said, the wealth of characters Marvel is bringing out would deny them from doing an X-Men movie themselves for awhile if ever. There's so many that they've already had to push back Runaways as is until later.

[Jmacq1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflakian

Quote a source, because all I've ever seen is marvel saying they are excited about the film when asked etc. Vaughn and Singer have had discussions with marvel writers about this film too prior to filming.

Quote a source yourself. Bearing in mind that makers of the film can talk with "Marvel Writers" all day without it having a damn thing to do with Marvel as a company. "Marvel Writers" are not slaves owned by Marvel Comics...they are permitted to talk to people without it reflecting the opinions of Marvel Entertainment or Disney as an organization. Nor does Marvel as a company (Bearing in Mind Marvel COMICS and Marvel STUDIOS are two different branches) saying they are "excited" for First Class (if indeed they have) have anything to do with whether Marvel studios wants the rights back to ALL their cinematic properties, even if they know it's an unlikely thing to happen anytime soon.

Nevermind that I didn't say diddly-squat about whether or not Marvel was "excited" for the film. Only that Marvel wants the rights to X-Men back. Source?

Disney Wants the Movie Rights Back for Fantastic Four, X-Men, Daredevil and Spider-Man - Nerd Reactor

Again, I am not agreeing with the above poster that says "Marvel wants this film to fail." But it takes some serious stupidity to honestly believe that Marvel Studios wouldn't LEAP at the chance to get the X-Men or Spider-Man (or Fantastic Four for that matter) rights back in their hands if it wouldn't cost them so much as to risk the future of the company (see below).

Quote:

Every fanboy keeps saying marvel wants the rights back, but honestly, all the comments they've said is they are indifferent about it. If they truly wanted the rights back, Disney could get them back.

Since you're so big on sources, please find a source that says Marvel Studios/Disney are "indifferent" about getting their rights back. I'll be waiting.

As for the second part of your statement. WRONG. The contracts that Marvel Entertainment signed with 20th Century Fox and Sony Pictures for X-Men and Spider-Man (and some of the other characters that have been made into movies at other studios) are "in perpetuity" contracts. This means that Fox and Sony can keep both of them effectively FOREVER as long as they continue to make movies based on those characters within a pre-set span of time (I believe it's 5 years between movies, but usually ends up being shorter than that). There is NOTHING Disney can do to get the rights back short of giving Fox or Sony MASSIVE payoffs, and by "massive" I mean payoffs in the billions of dollars range...which would effectively double (or more) the price Disney paid for Marvel as a whole ($4 billion). Effectively Sony and Fox can "name their price" for Disney/Marvel buying back those rights, and it ain't gonna go cheap. Not even Disney has that kind of cash just laying around waiting to be used. So again...no matter how much Disney/Marvel might WANT the rights back, there's nothing they can do about it until Sony or Fox violates the original contracts in some way, or simply chooses to hand the rights back to them (unlikely unless the property has been driven into the ground to the point of utter unprofitability).

Quote:

And again, like I said, the wealth of characters Marvel is bringing out would deny them from doing an X-Men movie themselves for awhile if ever. There's so many that they've already had to push back Runaways as is until later.

Another logical fallacy. If by some unlikely miracle the rights came back to Disney while the X-Men or Spider-Man properties were still profitable at the movies, I can guarantee they'd GLADLY push aside all the Ant-Man, Dr. Strange, Runaways, and Inhumans movies in the world to make room for an X-Men or Spider-Man film by Marvel studios ASAP. There's nothing that stops Disney/Marvel from "re-prioritizing" their slate of movies, and with Disney's backing behind them there's really nothing that stops them from having a ton of films in development at once (particularly when many of them are still in scriptwriting stage, which is hardly a resource-intensive level of production). A major studio like Fox, Warner Brothers, Paramount, or Disney (particularly when you consider their multiple subsidiaries) can put out enough movies in one year to completely encompass all of the films Marvel has "in development" at the moment. The amount of films "being worked on" has NOTHING to do with Marvel's ability to make more films. People act like Marvel's slate of proposed films is ambitious, when in actuality it's small potatoes in the grand scheme of filmmaking.

But again, it's a moot point, because Fox and Sony are NOT going to give the rights back. It is, however, idiotic to believe that Disney/Marvel wouldn't LIKE to get the rights to two of Marvel's three most profitable franchises back in their own hands.

[Snowflakian]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jmacq1

Quote a source yourself. Bearing in mind that makers of the film can talk with "Marvel Writers" all day without it having a damn thing to do with Marvel as a company. "Marvel Writers" are not slaves owned by Marvel Comics...they are permitted to talk to people without it reflecting the opinions of Marvel Entertainment or Disney as an organization. Nor does Marvel as a company (Bearing in Mind Marvel COMICS and Marvel STUDIOS are two different branches) saying they are "excited" for First Class (if indeed they have) have anything to do with whether Marvel studios wants the rights back to ALL their cinematic properties, even if they know it's an unlikely thing to happen anytime soon.

Nevermind that I didn't say diddly-squat about whether or not Marvel was "excited" for the film. Only that Marvel wants the rights to X-Men back. Source?

Disney Wants the Movie Rights Back for Fantastic Four, X-Men, Daredevil and Spider-Man - Nerd Reactor

Again, I am not agreeing with the above poster that says "Marvel wants this film to fail." But it takes some serious stupidity to honestly believe that Marvel Studios wouldn't LEAP at the chance to get the X-Men or Spider-Man (or Fantastic Four for that matter) rights back in their hands if it wouldn't cost them so much as to risk the future of the company (see below).



Since you're so big on sources, please find a source that says Marvel Studios/Disney are "indifferent" about getting their rights back. I'll be waiting.

As for the second part of your statement. WRONG. The contracts that Marvel Entertainment signed with 20th Century Fox and Sony Pictures for X-Men and Spider-Man (and some of the other characters that have been made into movies at other studios) are "in perpetuity" contracts. This means that Fox and Sony can keep both of them effectively FOREVER as long as they continue to make movies based on those characters within a pre-set span of time (I believe it's 5 years between movies, but usually ends up being shorter than that). There is NOTHING Disney can do to get the rights back short of giving Fox or Sony MASSIVE payoffs, and by "massive" I mean payoffs in the billions of dollars range...which would effectively double (or more) the price Disney paid for Marvel as a whole ($4 billion). Effectively Sony and Fox can "name their price" for Disney/Marvel buying back those rights, and it ain't gonna go cheap. Not even Disney has that kind of cash just laying around waiting to be used. So again...no matter how much Disney/Marvel might WANT the rights back, there's nothing they can do about it until Sony or Fox violates the original contracts in some way, or simply chooses to hand the rights back to them (unlikely unless the property has been driven into the ground to the point of utter unprofitability).



Another logical fallacy. If by some unlikely miracle the rights came back to Disney while the X-Men or Spider-Man properties were still profitable at the movies, I can guarantee they'd GLADLY push aside all the Ant-Man, Dr. Strange, Runaways, and Inhumans movies in the world to make room for an X-Men or Spider-Man film by Marvel studios ASAP. There's nothing that stops Disney/Marvel from "re-prioritizing" their slate of movies, and with Disney's backing behind them there's really nothing that stops them from having a ton of films in development at once (particularly when many of them are still in scriptwriting stage, which is hardly a resource-intensive level of production). A major studio like Fox, Warner Brothers, Paramount, or Disney (particularly when you consider their multiple subsidiaries) can put out enough movies in one year to completely encompass all of the films Marvel has "in development" at the moment. The amount of films "being worked on" has NOTHING to do with Marvel's ability to make more films. People act like Marvel's slate of proposed films is ambitious, when in actuality it's small potatoes in the grand scheme of filmmaking.

But again, it's a moot point, because Fox and Sony are NOT going to give the rights back. It is, however, idiotic to believe that Disney/Marvel wouldn't LIKE to get the rights to two of Marvel's three most profitable franchises back in their own hands.

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

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.

Blog@Newsarama » Blog Archive » Sony gives up Spectacular Spider-Man rights Plus hundreds more if you look in google. Straight from Sony and Disney as well.

http://tv.ign.com/articles/102/1020699p1.html
Also straight from the people who worked on the sony spectacular spider-man toon.

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.

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.

http://www.deadline.com/2010/10/marv...down-runaways/ 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.

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.

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.

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.

And let's not forget that Marvel tends to not play hollywood politics well, calling Terrence Howard a diva. (Honestly I can't argue that though, they are right.) And how they actively keep bouncing the director's around on projects like their recent announcement about removing Favreau from Ironman 3 and adding the lethal weapon director. Let's also not forget the Norton debacle either.

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. So that's where their focus is. (That you can find by adding up the boxoffices from boxofficemojo. Pure numbers, so no speculation needed from analysts.) Thor is on pace to do about as well. So yes, marvel has proven they can make more profitable movies than Fox or Sony without using Spider-man or X-Men.

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.)
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. 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.)

For X-Men, it's mostly Singer handling it as producer. Hugh Jackman is Producer on Wolverine(which won't change so long as they want him as the character). So even if it left fox for marvel/disney. If those two stay on as producers, which they more than likely would, it doesn't matter what company distributes the movies, we'd still be getting what we're getting. Just this way, Marvel/Disney doesn't foot the bill, and still reaps the rewards in royalties.

The thing is, would Marvel really bite the hands that gave them the comic movie boom? Fox/singer gave them the first X-Men which helped the door open, just as Sony gave them Spider-man that busted the door wide open. (Let's not forget Blade's help in all this either!)
Granted sony did do just that with their bickering at Raimi, but I can't see Marvel kicking Hugh Jackman to the curb, just like I couldn't see them kicking RDJ, or Samuel Jackson to the curb.

Just to clarify, when marvel talks about character mismanagement, they are refering to the Ben Affleck Daredevil film, the elektra film, the punisher movie before war zone (war zone was marvel, and it still flopped, so it's not mismanagement, it's the actual character), and the fantastic 4 movies. Spider-man and X-Men aren't considered part of the mismanaged licenses as yet. Note I said 'as yet.' Given time that may change, but for now it's not the case.

So yes the contracts are a mess, but it's a mess that works in Marvel's favor for now, plus if they really wanted, nothing is stopping them from a direct to dvd/tv market for animation or live movies/series, the contract only covers theatrical films. Also, it's been over 6 years since the last Daredevil(elektra) movie and counting.

Also that original IESB article they quote, has since been pulled.

[Reaver Strike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterSock

Their a 2 pack coming one with with wolverine and Sabretooth, another with cyclops and jean.
New "Celebrating X-Men 1st Class" Comic 2-Pack Images - Marvel - MarvelousNews.com <== Pics!

Yes, but those aren't based on the movie.

[snake5289]

I was hoping for a Beast, Emma, and different Magneto. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the Secret Was comic pack version I'm just not a fan of the body they used.

[behindthemask]

In response to cainraw comments... yes I have mixed emotions about the movie, and as a fanboy I have every right to be on the fence. All 3 x-men movies were ok, nothing overly amazing.. in the sence of being as epic as lord of the rings, the matrix, harry potter etc... They're all huge franchises, but x-men could be bigger and better, and I hate the fact Fox has the rights to it. I may boycott the movie all together, I never really heard about the film nearly as much as thor,cap, and the avengers pieces get attention for, and because of this I like most people started watching trailers, info on youtube etc and nothing but boycott this and that for the film, having seen a few more trailers for it, it does look better then my first thoughts but doesn't have me running to the theatres the way thor and cap appeals to me. I mean for me going to the movies isn't cheap, $11ish/ticket x 2 tickets, popcorn, drinks etc, and a cab there and back I've spent easy $40-50, then eventually it'll come out on dvd/bluray which is another 20-30, maybe they make a video game, that's $60, tack on a poster, and maybe toys if we're lucky and I'm at easy 1-200 range. So for me as a consumer, someone who works hard for his $$ I don't wanna just give in to the hype, and say " yay another marvel movie", I personally want the film to blow at the box office, give the rights back to marvel and have them make an epic trilogy or more, and have the characters jim lee styled 90\s throwback... epic haha. IMO these are my feelings towards the film, may not be yours, but I'm entitled to them.

[cainraw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by behindthemask

In response to cainraw comments... yes I have mixed emotions about the movie, and as a fanboy I have every right to be on the fence. All 3 x-men movies were ok, nothing overly amazing.. in the sence of being as epic as lord of the rings, the matrix, harry potter etc... They're all huge franchises, but x-men could be bigger and better, and I hate the fact Fox has the rights to it. I may boycott the movie all together, I never really heard about the film nearly as much as thor,cap, and the avengers pieces get attention for, and because of this I like most people started watching trailers, info on youtube etc and nothing but boycott this and that for the film, having seen a few more trailers for it, it does look better then my first thoughts but doesn't have me running to the theatres the way thor and cap appeals to me. I mean for me going to the movies isn't cheap, $11ish/ticket x 2 tickets, popcorn, drinks etc, and a cab there and back I've spent easy $40-50, then eventually it'll come out on dvd/bluray which is another 20-30, maybe they make a video game, that's $60, tack on a poster, and maybe toys if we're lucky and I'm at easy 1-200 range. So for me as a consumer, someone who works hard for his $$ I don't wanna just give in to the hype, and say " yay another marvel movie", I personally want the film to blow at the box office, give the rights back to marvel and have them make an epic trilogy or more, and have the characters jim lee styled 90\s throwback... epic haha. IMO these are my feelings towards the film, may not be yours, but I'm entitled to them.

I see what you're saying, but you still can't really know until you see it. Trust me, when I heard about this movie, my first thought was "fuck that", then after seeing the trailers, I'm hyped on it. But, thats me.

[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.

[trebleshot]

Ok, we're done here.