• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

About The MCU And Character Rights (Recent Marvel Movie Spoilers Inside)...

Status
Not open for further replies.
HUELEN10

HUELEN10

Member
Spoilers ahead for various Marvel movies

So, I watched Captain America: The Winter Soldier (it's awesome!) and stuck around for after the credits. In a scene,
Quicksilver and his Sister are both shown.
Now, both of these are X-man characters aren't they? Then, I only recently learned that
Quicksilver
is in the new X-Men movie! In a Hardee's ad of all things. How can this be? I thought guys like Iron Man couldn't be in the Spider-Man movies any more than Wolverine could be in thor, but now we have an X-Men movie with this character AND an MCU movie the same character, one who is slated to return for at least one more MCU film. What exactly is the deal with the rights nowdays anyways? I read up the Wiki article for Winter Soldier, and Ctrl-F'd the one for the new X-men (I don't want to get spoiled as I've only seen the first 2 X-men films, and I really need and want to catch up), and I didn't see anything when it came to licenses and rights? So what is allowed to be used by disney and what isn't and vice versa? Are there other characters that can be used by any studio? Might that only confuse people?

I just want to better understand the situation here. I wish there was a future coming soon where every marvel movie was connected within the MCU in some way.
 
marvel-rights_4444x3556.png
Click to expand...
.
 
EdibleKnife said:
infographic-visual-guide-to-marvel-character-movie-rights.png
Click to expand...
This chart isn't all the characters right? I mean, I haven't seen Doc Ock in a Hulk movie yet. So why are Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch the only 2 characters that are shared? Why them? What makes them so special? It just seems oddly specific and damned peculiar to me. I don't know much about the acquiring rights, but when do Fox and Sony's rights expire, so that Disney can nab them again?
 
HUELEN10 said:
This chart isn't all the characters right? I mean, I haven't seen Doc Ock in a Hulk movie yet. So why are Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch the only 2 characters that are shared? Why them? What makes them so special? It just seems oddly specific and damned peculiar to me. I don't know much about the acquiring rights, but when do Fox and Sony's rights expire, so that Disney can nab them again?
Click to expand...

As long as Fox and Sony make X-men and Spider-man movies respectively on a continuing basis, the movies rights don't expire.
 
HUELEN10 said:
So why are Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch the only 2 characters that are shared? Why them? What makes them so special?
Click to expand...

Even though they're mutants, they're mostly associated with the Avengers. An argument can be made by either side for usage. That's what the thinking is.

HUELEN10 said:
Shit, that's insane. Why the hell did they write-up a contract like that?
Click to expand...

Because Marvel was at or near bankrupcy at the time and needed money.
 
HUELEN10 said:
This chart isn't all the characters right? I mean, I haven't seen Doc Ock in a Hulk movie yet. So why are Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch the only 2 characters that are shared? Why them? What makes them so special? It just seems oddly specific and damned peculiar to me. I don't know much about the acquiring rights, but when do Fox and Sony's rights expire, so that Disney can nab them again?
Click to expand...

No, it's not all the characters. Characters that are part of the Spider-Man universe go with Sony. Kingpin seemed to be shared with Daredevil, so it looks like it will be shared with Sony.
 
Okay, now I really need to know: Who owns Beta Ray Bill?

He was AWESOME in Planet Hulk. Hell, why did he replace Silver Surfer in it anyways? Regardless, he was awesome.
 
HUELEN10 said:
Spoilers ahead for various Marvel movies

So, I watched Captain America: The Winter Soldier (it's awesome!) and stuck around for after the credits. In a scene,
Quicksilver and his Sister are both shown.
Now, both of these are X-man characters aren't they? Then, I only recently learned that
Quicksilver
is in the new X-Men movie! In a Hardee's ad of all things. How can this be? I thought guys like Iron Man couldn't be in the Spider-Man movies any more than Wolverine could be in thor, but now we have an X-Men movie with this character AND an MCU movie the same character, one who is slated to return for at least one more MCU film. What exactly is the deal with the rights nowdays anyways? I read up the Wiki article for Winter Soldier, and Ctrl-F'd the one for the new X-men (I don't want to get spoiled as I've only seen the first 2 X-men films, and I really need and want to catch up), and I didn't see anything when it came to licenses and rights? So what is allowed to be used by disney and what isn't and vice versa? Are there other characters that can be used by any studio? Might that only confuse people?

I just want to better understand the situation here. I wish there was a future coming soon where every marvel movie was connected within the MCU in some way.
Click to expand...

My guess is the Avengers
Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver
will be Baron Strucker's kids. Seeing as Strucker also had twins.

No one cares about these two:
Fenris_002.jpg


And Avengers needs some twins.
 
numble said:
No, it's not all the characters. Characters that are part of the Spider-Man universe go with Sony. Kingpin seemed to be shared with Daredevil, so it looks like it will be shared with Sony.
Click to expand...

Kevin Feige said in an interview that Marvel/Disney should be able to use Kingpin in the upcoming Daredevil Netflix series.
 
HUELEN10 said:
Okay, now I really need to know: Who owns Beta Ray Bill?

He was AWESOME in Planet Hulk. Hell, why did he replace Silver Surfer in it anyways? Regardless, he was awesome.
Click to expand...

There's a list with the Marvel/Disney ownerships excised in the article. I hazard everything not on that list is Marvel/Disney now. Including Beta Ray. He is closely Thor related so they wouldn't have let that slip away.
 
IHaveIce said:
Wait Namor is at Universal?


Surely he also would have to be in a grayzone like Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch?

Edit: going by that there also should be more characters that aren't really just in one bubble.
Click to expand...

Namor premiered almost 30 years before X-Men and was retconned in to being a mutant. Pretty sure that's why he's separate from the mutant deal.
 
HUELEN10 said:
This chart isn't all the characters right?
Click to expand...

Of course not. The Marvel Universe has well over 8000 characters.

I mean, I haven't seen Doc Ock in a Hulk movie yet.
Click to expand...

With a character's franchise go their associated supporting characters, which includes villains. So anything that is commonly associated with a franchise that belongs to that franchise. That's why you won't see Hulk fight Doctor Octopus (aside from the fact it would make little sense to use a Spidey villain before a villain that is usually associated with Hulk).

So why are Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch the only 2 characters that are shared? Why them? What makes them so special? It just seems oddly specific and damned peculiar to me.
Click to expand...

The thing is that Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver only have their origins related to the X-Men. They're mutants, and their father is Magneto, and they originated in the Brotherhood before leaving to join the Avengers. For the majority of their existence, the twins were not even remotely connected to the X-Men or any other mutant teams beyond the mutant origin, but mainstays on the Avengers. It wasn't until much later in their lifespan that Magneto was revealed to be their father, and until recently that Scarlet Witch started involving herself much with the existence of mutants.
As a matter of fact, after leaving the Brotherhood, neither Scarlet Witch nor Quicksilver were on any other mutant-related team, let alone the X-Men (which you allude to in your OP; debunking that as well. The twins never have been X-Men at all).

This dual status is what makes them special. There's been X-Men on the Avengers before, but those are firm X-Men characters like Storm or Beast or Wolverine. However, the twins are the exception because they only started in the X-Men franchise, but the vast majority of their existence was spent in Avengers-related material; but their origins are firmly tied to the mutants with Magneto being their father.

I assume Fox and Marvel have been able to negotiate something in regards to these 2 characters, which is why in Winter Soldier, they aren't referred to as mutants, but as "miracles", and it's implied they were created by Baron von Strucker.

I don't know much about the acquiring rights, but when do Fox and Sony's rights expire, so that Disney can nab them again?
Click to expand...

Sadly, the rights given to Fox and Sony are very peculiar. The way these contracts are handled is that as long as the foreign studios create at least one movie within a timespan of a few years, the contract automatically renews itself. Those contracts were made long before Marvel started caring about its properties much and licensed stuff out quite easily due to being close to bankruptcy. It's the reason why Fox is doing a Fantastic Four reboot now, it's mostly to keep the license.

IHaveIce said:
Wait Namor is at Universal?


Surely he also would have to be in a grayzone like Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch?
Click to expand...

Yes, that was confirmed some time last year by I think Feige. Why would he be?
 
Father_Brain said:
The Spider-Man deal was originally a finite six-film contract, but Disney extended it in 2010 in exchange for Sony giving up some combination of the animation/TV/merchandising rights.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the 6 film deal from? I understood that Disney exchanged its co-production participation for the merchandising rights. I don't think the TV or animation rights were ever a part of the movie deals.
 
Can anyone explain why Disney don't just go and buy some of the rights back?

I mean, sure Spiderman and X-Men would probably be too expensive, but surely the Fantastic Four would be easy enough. Maybe they'll wait for the reboot to bomb first.
 
sohois said:
Can anyone explain why Disney don't just go and buy some of the rights back?

I mean, sure Spiderman and X-Men would probably be too expensive, but surely the Fantastic Four would be easy enough. Maybe they'll wait for the reboot to bomb first.
Click to expand...

With Disney there's the possibility of it reverting if it doesn't get made on time, where they'll get it for free. Or it bombs, and it'll be cheaper to buy.

With Fox, they don't know what they have on their hands and they don't want to get rid of it if its a potential blockbuster franchise that they can spam for cash.
 
Disney extended Sony's Spider-Man deal? For how many movies more or years longer? Fox can keep their mutant rabble rousers and the quintessential quartet, I just want to see Spidey on the MCU.
 
chaobreaker said:
Disney extended Sony's Spider-Man deal? For how many movies more or years longer? Fox can keep their mutant rabble rousers and the quintessential quartet, I just want to see Spidey on the MCU.
Click to expand...
I don't think there was an extension, I think they have the same film deal as other licenses (you have the license as long as you keep making movies). I don't think Sony would be talking about spamming Spider-Man movies yearly if they had a finite number of movies to make--why burn a film on the Sinister Six when you can make another Spider-Man movie? Disney previously got 5% of revenue from Spider-Man movies (with Hollywood accounting, it probably wasn't much), and it looks like they exchanged it for merchandising revenue:

"To that end, we recently completed a transaction with Sony Pictures to simplify our relationship. And then in the deal, we purchased Sony Pictures' participation in Spiderman merchandising, while at the same time, Sony Pictures purchased from us our participation in Spiderman films. This transaction will allow us to control and fully benefit from all Spiderman merchandising activity, while Sony will continue to produce and distribute Spiderman films. We won't be specific about the economics of this 2-way transaction, but we expect it will drive attractive returns for Disney."
Click to expand...

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=49687#puGqbImwR39oYC8i.99

There is no way Disney would exchange a billion-dollar movie franchise for just merchandise revenue.
 
sohois said:
Can anyone explain why Disney don't just go and buy some of the rights back?

I mean, sure Spiderman and X-Men would probably be too expensive, but surely the Fantastic Four would be easy enough. Maybe they'll wait for the reboot to bomb first.
Click to expand...

  • It's free money for Marvel. They get royalty percentages from the movies (though I guess not Spider-Man anymore) and their characters and universe benefit from the advertisement and hype from the movies all while not taking any of the financial risk or burden of producing a movie.
  • They can only produce so many movies at a time. We would not be getting Captain America, Guardians of the Galaxy, X-Men, and Spider-Man movies all in the same year if Marvel had to produce them all. Again, this goes back to the free money and advertising.
  • The amount of money Fox and Sony would be asking for these very profitable franchises especially in the wake of Avengers' success is probably way more than they're worth. Especially when you take those first two points in to consideration.
 
MHWilliams said:
My guess is the Avengers
Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver
will be Baron Strucker's kids. Seeing as Strucker also had twins.

No one cares about these two:
Fenris_002.jpg


And Avengers needs some twins.
Click to expand...
I knew ahead of time that
Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch
were going to be in A2, but for some reason when I saw that scene on Saturday night, I was thinking 'Hmmm...I'm not really understanding what they are doing with Andrea and Andreas here. What is the point they are trying to get across about these characters?'
And then immediately after the scene it dawned on me who they were supposed to be. I suppose I should have picked up on
Scarlett Witch's
power but I wasn't really expecting it.
If they hadn't mentioned Baron Strucker's name, I probably would have realized who they were immediately.
 
sohois said:
Can anyone explain why Disney don't just go and buy some of the rights back?

I mean, sure Spiderman and X-Men would probably be too expensive, but surely the Fantastic Four would be easy enough. Maybe they'll wait for the reboot to bomb first.
Click to expand...

They have done, just not for the big properties like Spidey, F4 and X-Men, as they're too profitable to Sony and Fox to ever want to let them go. Well, Spidey and X-Men are, we'll see about F4.

When Marvel were looking to set up Marvel Studios as an independent film studio, there was a ton of negotiation to get many of their characters back under Marvel's control. New Line Cinema had Iron Man, Paramount had Thor and Lions Gate had Black Widow. Marvel were able to negotiate the rights back for these as they weren't in active development.

They're still doing this. Ghost Rider, Punisher and Daredevil recently went back to Marvel control.
 
sohois said:
Can anyone explain why Disney don't just go and buy some of the rights back?

I mean, sure Spiderman and X-Men would probably be too expensive, but surely the Fantastic Four would be easy enough. Maybe they'll wait for the reboot to bomb first.
Click to expand...

Nah, Fox knows that Marvel wants them. Hell, I remember reading that Marvel tried letting Fox keep Daredevil in exchange for Silver Surfer and Galactus. Fox obviously said no so now we get a Daredevil TV show that will probably end up better than the new Fantastic Four.

Here is a pretty solid summary of events: http://www.comicbookresources.com/?id=40306&page=article

Looks like they were indeed interested in making Annihilation happen at some point.
 
chaobreaker said:
Disney extended Sony's Spider-Man deal? For how many movies more or years longer? Fox can keep their mutant rabble rousers and the quintessential quartet, I just want to see Spidey on the MCU.
Click to expand...

The deal is the same as always, I think. If Sony makes new movies within a certain time frame they keep the rights. If they go too long without making one, the rights revert to marvel. There's no time or film limit on it, never has been. Marvel was desperate for money and signed something very favorable to the other side.
 
HUELEN10 said:
Okay, now I really need to know: Who owns Beta Ray Bill?

He was AWESOME in Planet Hulk. Hell, why did he replace Silver Surfer in it anyways? Regardless, he was awesome.
Click to expand...

I don't know if anyone answered that last part, but Beta Ray Bill replaced Silver Surfer in Planet Hulk because it's a movie and Fox owns the movie rights to Silver Surfer unfortunately :(
 
By virtue of Namor being a member of the Xmen (as a mutant, the first mutant), an Avenger, a Defender, an Invader (killing Nazis with Captain America), a member of the Illuminati, a member of the Cabal, Dr. Doom's best friend, a sovereign ruler over the oceans, and a bunch of other shit, he should be Stan Lee status.
 
There are a few other crossover exceptions. For example, the Skrulls can be used by both Fox and Marvel, since they figure prominently in both Avengers lore (Kree Skrull War, Secret Invasion for example) and Fantastic Four. However, only Fox is allowed to use Super Skrull.

The rule on Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch is that Marvel can use them, but can't reference Mutants, Magneto or the Brotherhood. Fox can't reference the Avengers.
 
MHWilliams said:
My guess is the Avengers
Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver
will be Baron Strucker's kids. Seeing as Strucker also had twins.

No one cares about these two:
Fenris_002.jpg


And Avengers needs some twins.
Click to expand...
What? We need Swordsman for a oroper Thunderbolts movie ( given that I think the TB run around Civil War through Siege is the best run)
 
Call me crazy, but I really want to see Lionsgate's Man-Thing movie. Also, didn't Marvel regain its rights very recently?
 
dark_inferno said:
Wait... 20th Century Fox owns Deadpool?

Time to say goodbye to a good Deadpool movie.
Click to expand...

A Deadpool film has been stuck in development hell since 2009. Granted, it was going to be based on the shitty one from X-Men Origins with Ryan Reynolds so maybe it's better off unrealized.
 
It's pretty simple. I'll sum it up

Sony Owns
Spider-Man and all of his related characters.
Kingpin is usable by the Daredevil license holder.
This deal expires if there is not a film proven to be in production, for release in cinema or home media within 7 years of the last release utilizing the license. It is improbably that Sony will ever give up this license as long as the company stands. Currently they have three more films using the license planned.

Fox Owns
Fantastic Four, some of their villains, Galactus and his Heralds including Silver Surfer.
Skrulls can be used by Marvel if they want, but Super Skrull specifically may only be used by the Fantastic Four license holder.
This deal expires if there is not a film proven to be in production, for release in cinema or home media within 7 years of the last release utilizing the license. Fox would probably part with it for a cost if the upcoming film bombs like Sony did with Ghost Rider. Nonetheless, a sequel to the reboot is already scheduled for 2017.

X-Men, Deadpool and all characters linked with the X-Men and all characters who were originated as mutants.
Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch may be used by Marvel if they wish, however their connection to Magneto may not be mentioned and their being mutants may not be mentioned.
This deal expires if there is not a film proven to be in production, for release in cinema or home media within 7 years of the last release utilizing the license. It is improbable that Fox will ever give up this license as long as the company stands. Currently they have four more films using the license planned.

Universal Owns
Namor and his related characters.
This deal expires if there is not a film proven to be in production, for release in cinema or home media within 7 years of the last release utilizing the license. The last time this deal came up for expiration Marvel let Universal renew the rights since they had no plan to use the property and it is free money from Universal for renewal. Currently there are no films using the license planned, although you have to think at some point Universal will want to look into it. The expiration should be coming up in a couple of years and I find it likely that Universal will let it expire without renewal if they don't get a project underway soon.

Disney/Marvel Owns
*Everything else not mentioned above that has ever graced the pages of Marvel Comics.
They may use Skrulls, but not specifically Super Skrull.
They may use Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, but are unable to mention Magneto or their being mutants.
They may use Kingpin, but only in relation to Daredevil, they cannot mention his relation with or actions involving Spider-man characters.
They are unable to say anyone is a mutant. As the content creators, Marvel has no "expiration" on their licenses.
Their property is theirs unless they want to get rid of it.

*I'm actually not sure about Man-Thing, who may be the only exception. Although, they have mentioned him in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. so I'm thinking they have him back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[Deadline] New Dune Part 3 Character Posters Revealed
News Spoilers 
37
601
Moondoggy replied
Marvel reveals The New Avengers (spoilers obviously)
News Spoilers  2
90
4K
SkylineRKR replied
Too addicted to the smartphone…and thinking about games
43
556
Fenix34 replied
Who else thinks the ending in the movie The Mist is dumb? (ending spoilers obviously)
2
78
2K
nkarafo replied
I am dead inside
2
67
984
gundalf replied
Top Bottom