"Marvel's commitment to their X-books are as strong as ever" - sounds a wee bit hyperbolic. I like that, but don't necessarily agree with that statement in its entirety.
When it comes to the publishing division, what difference in their X-office output are you seeing? The talk that Marvel is dismantling the X-Men, or that there will actually be "No More Mutants" seems like it is only based on these rumors about Marvel vs. Fox. It doesn't seem to be from anything we are seeing in what Marvel publishes. Sure, I've also heard speculation that Marvel would like to make the Inhumans "their" X-Men. But you wouldn't know it by looking at the comics line. It isn't an Inhumans/Guardians crossover announced for next year. It is another Guardians/X-Men one.
So as more and more X-events get announced for 2015, on top of the one we are in the midst of right now (the second Avengers vs. X-Men event in almost as many years), it seems to me like business as usual.
And, to me, that is further proof that- whatever the suits at Marvel and Fox feel about each other's movies, the publishing division is not where those battles are being fought. Publishing seems to be trying to do its best to sell the comics it can in a tough market.
I'm not 100% certain if some people are glad Marvel isn't really killing off X-Men because of Fox owning the rights or upset that the X-Men aren't getting phased out like the FF reportedly will be.
M
I can only speak for myself, but as a longtime fan of X-books, and as someone really enjoying All New and Uncanny right now, I am glad for them to just keep doing what they are doing, and not be affected by any political nonsense between movie studios.
This is the best the X-Titles have been in decades. IT would be tragic to cut them off now.
Notice that the line that is being phased out is also the one that has seen lukewarm sales for a long time. If FF were selling like the X-titles, even someone as allegedly hot-headed as Ike Perlmutter would probably suck it up and tell publishing and marketing to keep pushing them. Money is money.
That it's not gives them a little leverage to engage in a pissing contest with Fox, because even though we know they're going to bring the title back at some point, that they're not bothering to publish it leading up to and during the release of the film tells me that at the very least they're not getting on board with promoting the film much or even at all. And I don't blame them, because everything I've read about it so far doesn't give me much confidence. If it's a train wreck, best to stay out of the way, then sift through the wreckage when it's done.
My theory, which may be just as ridiculous as the others being tossed around, is that more than the FF, Marvel would love to get their hands on Galactus, Silver Surfer, Skrulls, Annihilus, Negative Zone... I'm wondering, would Adam Warlock fall under FF, since he was introduced in that title? That's a lot of cosmic concepts that would work well with a Guardians franchise or any spin-offs that may result from it. It must drive some people at Marvel nuts to see all those concepts tied up with a studio that doesn't seem to know what to do with them.
hypothetically, lets say Marvel Studios were to get the Rights to the FF back tomorrow. How would you introduce them to the existing cinematic universe. They can't quite hold the same position as Marvel's first familyin the MCU, I don't think. Would you bring them in on the cosmic GotG side? Do the origin story and have them encounter cosmic radiation or treat them like Michael Douglas Ant Man & George Stark as something that has alwasy been there but just hadn't come up yet. I suppose if you go the route that they have been here all along you need to have a line explaining why they didn't show up in New York (which is easy enough, they were off in the Negative Zone doing crazy adventure stuff).
My theory, which may be just as ridiculous as the others being tossed around, is that more than the FF, Marvel would love to get their hands on Galactus, Silver Surfer, Skrulls, Annihilus, Negative Zone... I'm wondering, would Adam Warlock fall under FF, since he was introduced in that title? That's a lot of cosmic concepts that would work well with a Guardians franchise or any spin-offs that may result from it. It must drive some people at Marvel nuts to see all those concepts tied up with a studio that doesn't seem to know what to do with them.
That is my theory as well. The FF itself, I think, is pretty lame. It's their extended world that I find fascinating.
My theory, which may be just as ridiculous as the others being tossed around, is that more than the FF, Marvel would love to get their hands on Galactus, Silver Surfer, Skrulls, Annihilus, Negative Zone... I'm wondering, would Adam Warlock fall under FF, since he was introduced in that title? That's a lot of cosmic concepts that would work well with a Guardians franchise or any spin-offs that may result from it. It must drive some people at Marvel nuts to see all those concepts tied up with a studio that doesn't seem to know what to do with them.
That is my theory as well. The FF itself, I think, is pretty lame. It's their extended world that I find fascinating.
I don't think they're inherently lame. Maybe not used right very often. I think they'd be a hugely fun big Disney adventure franchise. I'm thinking Journey to the Center of the Earth, Fantastic Voyage big family friendly adventure with the FF in the lead.
My theory, which may be just as ridiculous as the others being tossed around, is that more than the FF, Marvel would love to get their hands on Galactus, Silver Surfer, Skrulls, Annihilus, Negative Zone... I'm wondering, would Adam Warlock fall under FF, since he was introduced in that title? That's a lot of cosmic concepts that would work well with a Guardians franchise or any spin-offs that may result from it. It must drive some people at Marvel nuts to see all those concepts tied up with a studio that doesn't seem to know what to do with them.
That is my theory as well. The FF itself, I think, is pretty lame. It's their extended world that I find fascinating.
I don't think they're inherently lame. Maybe not used right very often. I think they'd be a hugely fun big Disney adventure franchise. I'm thinking Journey to the Center of the Earth, Fantastic Voyage big family friendly adventure with the FF in the lead.
That seems to me to be the most obvious thing for Marvel to do with them if they ever get the rights back. It would make for a great family adventure franchise. If there is enmity between Marvel and Fox, it's probably because everything Fox has done with the property so far has ignored the most obvious approach, and resulted in something that doesn't give Marvel a lot to work with. At least they can cherry pick stuff from Fox's X-franchise and run with it. I can't think of anything from the first two films that improves or expands on what Marvel already has, and this new film sounds so far off from the concept that touching on it would require throwing out much of what they're currently doing.
I'm thinking Journey to the Center of the Earth, Fantastic Voyage big family friendly adventure with the FF in the lead.
Exactly. Another comparison could be Doctor Who. What attracted me to the FF as kid was all of the space faring, dimension hopping and time travelling adventures.
My theory, which may be just as ridiculous as the others being tossed around, is that more than the FF, Marvel would love to get their hands on Galactus, Silver Surfer, Skrulls, Annihilus, Negative Zone... I'm wondering, would Adam Warlock fall under FF, since he was introduced in that title? That's a lot of cosmic concepts that would work well with a Guardians franchise or any spin-offs that may result from it. It must drive some people at Marvel nuts to see all those concepts tied up with a studio that doesn't seem to know what to do with them.
That is my theory as well. The FF itself, I think, is pretty lame. It's their extended world that I find fascinating.
Eh, I was being too harsh when I said they were lame. When it boils down to it, it's just Reed Richards who I think is lame. Okay "irritating" is the word I'm really looking for.
I don't think they're lame so much as writing them takes effort. You can throw a hack on a Batman title and come up with something halfway decent. Unless someone really takes the job seriously, FF can become tedious.
hypothetically, lets say Marvel Studios were to get the Rights to the FF back tomorrow. How would you introduce them to the existing cinematic universe. They can't quite hold the same position as Marvel's first familyin the MCU, I don't think. Would you bring them in on the cosmic GotG side? Do the origin story and have them encounter cosmic radiation or treat them like Michael Douglas Ant Man & George Stark as something that has alwasy been there but just hadn't come up yet. I suppose if you go the route that they have been here all along you need to have a line explaining why they didn't show up in New York (which is easy enough, they were off in the Negative Zone doing crazy adventure stuff).
YES! Treat the film viewers to the same experience that comic book readers have in an extended marvel universe. Especially a cohesive Marvel U as it existed in the 70s and 80s. As a kid, I was acutely aware that other super heroes and teams existed in Marvel's world, and they were having their own adventures at the same time as the ones that I was reading about in the books that I religiously purchased. However, even though I couldn't afford to get EVERYTHING, I had a sense that other stuff was happening elsewhere at the same time. Every once in a while, I would dive into another book midstream... it didn't take more than an issue or two to get caught up with those "new" characters.
In Marvel's cinematic world, you could easily do the same thing with the FF. They have been there all along, we just haven't been privy to what they have been doing. The film would be the "issue" that the viewer has finally picked up to get on board.
Also, for a publishing division that is supposedly distancing itself from the FF, I notice that not only are Reed and Sue front and center in the "Time Runs Out" story in New Avengers and Avengers (including Reed on a New Avengers cover), but also Doctor Doom is on at least three covers this month, including the cover of the current big Avengers/X-Men event.
Was the failure of Catwoman because of the movie in general or that it had nothing to do with the source material.
That is a very interesting question @Matt. I actually watched Catwoman and it comes down to a few things. A lot of it has to do with the fact that it strays so far away from the source material. The fact is that nothing about that movie had anything to do with Catwoman other than the name itself. Now, this could have been an interesting movie if it had just been a movie called Catwoman that had nothing to do with DC Comics. This leads to the what I feel was really wrong with the movie was that it was poorly acted and overall just a bit silly. I remember a particular scene where Halle Berry and Sharon Stone are in a confrontation and I remember just thinking that they were just phoning in their performances. It was like they didn't want to be there and were literally just reading their lines. Not that a better performance would have done anything for the dialogue overall. Overall, it was a poor script with bad effects and very lousy acting.
Another case that was a tad better when it came to the source material but still failed was Steel. There were a lot of problems with this movie but to begin, they got Shaquille O'Neal to play the lead. I realize he had the look to play John Henry Irons but I would have been better to have someone who could act to play your lead. The story itself wasn't so bad. It actually had more to do with the character's comic origins than Catwoman but everything about Steel's costume and abilities were just not the same. It just didn't feel like the character from the comics and again, a big reason as to why it bombed.
Now, I don't mind changes or deviations from the source material. I'm not beholden to things if you make it make sense. I know it's a mixed reaction but I've always liked the organic web shooters from Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. It was a slight change but it didn't change who the character was. I see too many changes in this Fantastic Four reboot to make me overly excited. If you make a movie where the characters are the characters in name only, you lose the essence of what made these characters interesting and beloved and you might as well just make a different movie all-together. I have heard nothing about this Fantastic Four movie that makes me think it's going to be about the characters I've read about in the comics which doesn't make me invested in this movie. I will of course check out the trailers and maybe I'll be wrong but as of now, I'm simply not impressed with what I know about this movie.
And Marvel recently released teasers for yet another X-event next summer. I would say that Marvel's commitment to their X-books are as strong as ever. At least, the publishing division is not showing any sign of slowing down on the X-office output.
I wouldn't count the proverbial chickens before the next event hatches...
And Marvel recently released teasers for yet another X-event next summer. I would say that Marvel's commitment to their X-books are as strong as ever. At least, the publishing division is not showing any sign of slowing down on the X-office output.
I wouldn't count the proverbial chickens before the next event hatches...
To clarify. My point has been that-- for all the rumors that Marvel is mad at Fox, and using the publishing division to spite them, and THAT is the sinister, behind the scenes reason for Fantastic Four getting cancelled (for a third time), 'and the X-Men might be next!'. . . we KEEP seeing 2015 promos for big events starring the X-Men. Now including Secret Wars. So the X-Men don't seem to be going anywhere.
And look who are featured prominently on the just-revealed cover to Secret Wars #1? Reed and Ben.
So for a publishing division that is supposedly doing the anti-Fox dirty work of making the Fantastic Four disappear from the shelves... a Secret Wars #1 with them and X-Men on the cover seems a funny way to go about that spite.
What is actually matters more to the readers, and to the viability of the characters: the FF not being on the cover of that '75 Years of Marvel' giveaway puff piece that was supposedly a smoking gun of Marvel hating Fox? Or FF characters being on the cover (and, I would guess, in the story) of what might be Marvel's biggest book of the year?
Maybe the Bleeding Cool rumor mongering/ conspiracy theory around the Fantastic Four cancellation was so much hokum and clickbait speculation.
Maybe the Bleeding Cool rumor mongering/ conspiracy theory around the Fantastic Four cancellation was so much hokum and clickbait speculation.
(Wouldn't be the first time)
I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement.
My larger point when posting the video was that if you're going to wipe out some titles/characters (for the foreseeable future) then obviously you'd want them front and center for such a gambit. Sell as many issues as you can. I think this method is very savvy actually. If I were going to promote the (supposed) end of two of my legacy properties for ANY reason (including to spite FOX), I'd make a HUGE deal about it.
Perhaps our disagreement is that you don't think Marvel would do any such thing, or stoop so low, or be so petty, ergo this must all be a silly rumor. I disagree. That's all.
Maybe the Bleeding Cool rumor mongering/ conspiracy theory around the Fantastic Four cancellation was so much hokum and clickbait speculation.
(Wouldn't be the first time)
I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement.
My larger point when posting the video was that if you're going to wipe out some titles/characters (for the foreseeable future) then obviously you'd want them front and center for such a gambit. Sell as many issues as you can. I think this method is very savvy actually. If I were going to promote the (supposed) end of two of my legacy properties for ANY reason (including to spite FOX), I'd make a HUGE deal about it.
Perhaps our disagreement is that you don't think Marvel would do any such thing, or stoop so low, or be so petty, ergo this must all be a silly rumor. I disagree. That's all.
I'm trying to figure out if:
1.) you're upset that Marvel (supposedly) eliminated FF, 2.) you're upset it doesn't look like Marvel is going to eliminate the X-titles, 3.) you're upset because Marvel (supposedly) is eliminating the X-titles, 4.) you're upset because no one else is upset about any (supposed) title eliminations, or 5.) you're upset because Marvel can do whatever they want with their titles?
Maybe the Bleeding Cool rumor mongering/ conspiracy theory around the Fantastic Four cancellation was so much hokum and clickbait speculation.
(Wouldn't be the first time)
I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement.
My larger point when posting the video was that if you're going to wipe out some titles/characters (for the foreseeable future) then obviously you'd want them front and center for such a gambit. Sell as many issues as you can. I think this method is very savvy actually. If I were going to promote the (supposed) end of two of my legacy properties for ANY reason (including to spite FOX), I'd make a HUGE deal about it.
Perhaps our disagreement is that you don't think Marvel would do any such thing, or stoop so low, or be so petty, ergo this must all be a silly rumor. I disagree. That's all.
I'm trying to figure out if:
1.) you're upset that Marvel (supposedly) eliminated FF, 2.) you're upset it doesn't look like Marvel is going to eliminate the X-titles, 3.) you're upset because Marvel (supposedly) is eliminating the X-titles, 4.) you're upset because no one else is upset about any (supposed) title eliminations, or 5.) you're upset because Marvel can do whatever they want with their titles?
M
6.) None of the above. I'm merely positing that it appears as if there is some truth to the rumors of Marvel being miffed at FOX and responding with cancellations, and I'm willing to reaffirm the hypothesis whenever someone in this forum thinks the idea is either foolish and unlikely. Don't know where you got the idea I was upset. I don't care for the X-titles and have little fondness for the FF beyond the Byrne run back in the late 80's.
Maybe the Bleeding Cool rumor mongering/ conspiracy theory around the Fantastic Four cancellation was so much hokum and clickbait speculation.
(Wouldn't be the first time)
I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement.
My larger point when posting the video was that if you're going to wipe out some titles/characters (for the foreseeable future) then obviously you'd want them front and center for such a gambit. Sell as many issues as you can. I think this method is very savvy actually. If I were going to promote the (supposed) end of two of my legacy properties for ANY reason (including to spite FOX), I'd make a HUGE deal about it.
Perhaps our disagreement is that you don't think Marvel would do any such thing, or stoop so low, or be so petty, ergo this must all be a silly rumor. I disagree. That's all.
I'm trying to figure out if:
1.) you're upset that Marvel (supposedly) eliminated FF, 2.) you're upset it doesn't look like Marvel is going to eliminate the X-titles, 3.) you're upset because Marvel (supposedly) is eliminating the X-titles, 4.) you're upset because no one else is upset about any (supposed) title eliminations, or 5.) you're upset because Marvel can do whatever they want with their titles?
M
6.) None of the above. I'm merely positing that it appears as if there is some truth to the rumors of Marvel being miffed at FOX and responding with cancellations, and I'm willing to reaffirm the hypothesis whenever someone in this forum thinks the idea is either foolish and unlikely. Don't know where you got the idea I was upset. I don't care for the X-titles and have little fondness for the FF beyond the Byrne run back in the late 80's.
Books have been cancelled before, doesn't mean they won't be back within a year. Will canceling the titles really stifle the box office? Chances are those comic book readers who were going to see the movie will do so anyway.
Those who don't read comic books will have zero idea the titles were canceled or really notice the merchandise featuring the characters have dropped off.
At this point the name "Marvel" is what is getting the general public into the theatre.
I get the feeling you're fired up about it because you seem to be the only one dwelling on it & trying to find evidence to support your concerns.
Maybe the Bleeding Cool rumor mongering/ conspiracy theory around the Fantastic Four cancellation was so much hokum and clickbait speculation.
(Wouldn't be the first time)
I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement.
My larger point when posting the video was that if you're going to wipe out some titles/characters (for the foreseeable future) then obviously you'd want them front and center for such a gambit. Sell as many issues as you can. I think this method is very savvy actually. If I were going to promote the (supposed) end of two of my legacy properties for ANY reason (including to spite FOX), I'd make a HUGE deal about it.
Perhaps our disagreement is that you don't think Marvel would do any such thing, or stoop so low, or be so petty, ergo this must all be a silly rumor. I disagree. That's all.
When it comes to the X-titles? No. I don't. I mean, I could see them using Secret Wars (or even the end of Axis) to do a cancel-and-relaunch of the X-books, as they have done many times before. But to cancel a consistently successful cornerstone of the publishing division because of interstudio politics? Nope. I don't see it. And not because I have some warm and fuzzy (or naive, to use your earlier word) belief that Marvel are too good of people to stoop so low.
Rather, because there comes a point, as small as a piece of the overall pie as publishing is, when that division would have to start justifying why they are cancelling that many successful books and leaving all that money on the table. "Because Perlmutter is mad at Fox" would not be a sufficient answer to those whose main interest is the bottom line. This is a public company. There is a limit to how much any one person can do to satisfy their own personal emotions or spite before there are consequences.
I also maintain the Bleeding Cool's (and others') initial premise is faulty. Both because taking the FF off the shelves of direct market comic book stores wouldn't be noticed by the general moviegoing public.
And, even if what characters were on the stands DID matter to Fox, well then instead of there being a midlist selling FF title puttering along at the time of the movie, we are instead going to have a promoted and publicized big finish triple sized issue shortly before the movie, at the same time FF characters are on the covers of other high selling books like Axis, Avengers, and now right on the cover of the big summer event book.
If this is the strategy of spite, to make the FF seem like IP-nongrata at Marvel, then publishing is doing a poor job of following those orders.
And the idea of cancelling all the X-books to spite Fox, given how well they sell, and how the X-characters continue to be merchandising juggernauts, is so ridiculous of a rumor as to be a non-starter.
One more thought, about the current FF being in Secret Wars-- if my earlier, alternate theory of the FF cancellation is true:
That Marvel, either just in publishing, or across all their platforms, are doing a 'wait-and-see' approach; and that if the new version of the Fantastic Four DOES succeed, then the comics version of that brand changes to align with the movie brand. OR, if the movie fails, then they make a splashy, #1 relaunch return of the back-to-basics, Classic Coke FF, and lapsed readers mad at the movie can celebrate the return of the FF with their dollars. But in the interim, FF as a monthly title is suspended, keeping their title in limbo (even at the same time the characters are being used in other titles, and events.)
If that is true, then having them involved in a Multiple Earths kind of event makes for a good narrative opportunity to make the 616 FF disappear, and to introduce a younger, different looking FF from another Earth.
Because, remember, the high profile real estate of event books at Marvel has much more often become a place to launch new titles FROM, rather than to be a place to bury titles that aren't working.
Books have been cancelled before, doesn't mean they won't be back within a year. Will canceling the titles really stifle the box office? Chances are those comic book readers who were going to see the movie will do so anyway.
Those who don't read comic books will have zero idea the titles were canceled or really notice the merchandise featuring the characters have dropped off.
At this point the name "Marvel" is what is getting the general public into the theatre.
I get the feeling you're fired up about it because you seem to be the only one dwelling on it & trying to find evidence to support your concerns.
Looks more like @Matt and @David_D are the ones dwelling on it. Along with people at other forums who agree with both sides. I suppose I could stop responding here. I've offered my take and see no added benefit in belaboring the topic of a theory that won't be proven out for at least 6 months, if then. And while I never said Marvel is definitely trying to cancel these books to hurt FOX financially, I believe it's established that Marvel / Disney is unwilling to offer FOX studios a single iota of promotion. You could argue that it would be a reasonable response for Marvel / Disney if it were possible to hurt FOX financially and eventually reacquire the FF & X-Men licenses, but I never suggested that this was a reasonable response for Marvel. Merely that it's the route that Marvel / Disney are taking, unreasonable or otherwise. It seems clear to me that Marvel's cinematic interests are what's driving most of their decisions right now. It also seems clear there is a bit of a feud between Fox & Marvel / Disney.
And regarding more "evidence" to support my concerns, here's a sample of recent articles regarding the feud:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but did anyone spot any X-Men: Days of Future Past toys this year? I didn't. So, whatever the reasons for Marvel's actions regarding X-Men and Fantastic Four, perhaps we can all agree that sometimes a franchise just needs a rest. Maybe this debate does as well...
Books have been cancelled before, doesn't mean they won't be back within a year. Will canceling the titles really stifle the box office? Chances are those comic book readers who were going to see the movie will do so anyway.
Those who don't read comic books will have zero idea the titles were canceled or really notice the merchandise featuring the characters have dropped off.
At this point the name "Marvel" is what is getting the general public into the theatre.
I get the feeling you're fired up about it because you seem to be the only one dwelling on it & trying to find evidence to support your concerns.
Looks more like @Matt and @David_D are the ones dwelling on it. Along with people at other forums who agree with both sides. I suppose I could stop responding here. I've offered my take and see no added benefit in belaboring the topic of a theory that won't be proven out for at least 6 months, if then. And while I never said Marvel is definitely trying to cancel these books to hurt FOX financially, I believe it's established that Marvel / Disney is unwilling to offer FOX studios a single iota of promotion. You could argue that it would be a reasonable response for Marvel / Disney if it were possible to hurt FOX financially and eventually reacquire the FF & X-Men licenses, but I never suggested that this was a reasonable response for Marvel. Merely that it's the route that Marvel / Disney are taking, unreasonable or otherwise. It seems clear to me that Marvel's cinematic interests are what's driving most of their decisions right now. It also seems clear there is a bit of a feud between Fox & Marvel / Disney.
And regarding more "evidence" to support my concerns, here's a sample of recent articles regarding the feud:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but did anyone spot any X-Men: Days of Future Past toys this year? I didn't. So, whatever the reasons for Marvel's actions regarding X-Men and Fantastic Four, perhaps we can all agree that sometimes a franchise just needs a rest. Maybe this debate does as well...
It seems the smoking gun that nearly all those commentators are using is the same quote by Claremont, and then they are off to the speculation (clickbait/ muckrake) races from there. Claremont is a figure worthy of respect, and himself a living piece of X-Men history... but has hardly been an architect or insider for a long time.
I can believe his claim that there may be a resistance or even freeze to introducing new X-characters that could become connected to the Fox license.
(Though I think the writer at Motley Fool probably doesn't understand that a "No New X-Men Characters!" mandate would actually not hurt them a bit, given:
A. How huge of a caralogue there already is and B. How much less audiences are interested in the new characters vs. the ones they grew up in and have already seen in cartoons and video games.
Given that they are only now getting around to things like a Deadpool or Gambit movie, and their next big bad is from nearly 30 years ago, I don't expect that Fox execs are waiting with baited breath to see if Claremont might introduce a new character in the pages of Nightcrawler, you know what I mean?
But that sort of freeze on new characters strategy, as well as the strategy of choosing to emphasize the properties you own across the board vs. the ones licensed out, is a FAR cry from the idea of canceling all X-books to actually get rid of them (as opposed to just relaunching them and selling more, as usual.). If that is what you are suggesting might happen, then I think that is a concern that can be laid to rest.
Books have been cancelled before, doesn't mean they won't be back within a year. Will canceling the titles really stifle the box office? Chances are those comic book readers who were going to see the movie will do so anyway.
Those who don't read comic books will have zero idea the titles were canceled or really notice the merchandise featuring the characters have dropped off.
At this point the name "Marvel" is what is getting the general public into the theatre.
I get the feeling you're fired up about it because you seem to be the only one dwelling on it & trying to find evidence to support your concerns.
Looks more like @Matt and @David_D are the ones dwelling on it. Along with people at other forums who agree with both sides. I suppose I could stop responding here. I've offered my take and see no added benefit in belaboring the topic of a theory that won't be proven out for at least 6 months, if then. And while I never said Marvel is definitely trying to cancel these books to hurt FOX financially, I believe it's established that Marvel / Disney is unwilling to offer FOX studios a single iota of promotion. You could argue that it would be a reasonable response for Marvel / Disney if it were possible to hurt FOX financially and eventually reacquire the FF & X-Men licenses, but I never suggested that this was a reasonable response for Marvel. Merely that it's the route that Marvel / Disney are taking, unreasonable or otherwise. It seems clear to me that Marvel's cinematic interests are what's driving most of their decisions right now. It also seems clear there is a bit of a feud between Fox & Marvel / Disney.
And regarding more "evidence" to support my concerns, here's a sample of recent articles regarding the feud:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but did anyone spot any X-Men: Days of Future Past toys this year? I didn't. So, whatever the reasons for Marvel's actions regarding X-Men and Fantastic Four, perhaps we can all agree that sometimes a franchise just needs a rest. Maybe this debate does as well...
So, I'm dwelling on it...not you? Up to this post I've got you at least 7 times posting about it. I'm at about 5, 2 or 3 aren't even about the (purported) title cancelations & studio issues. They're directed toward you specifically.
I'm not dwelling on the Fox vs. Marvel stuff. I'm more dwelling on what you seem to be all up in arms about it.
This is a comic book universe...planets live, planets die. Titles get canceled, titles get relaunched, rebooted, renumbered.
It isn't all about you, or me, but if you're counting each time I've responded to you @Matt and / or @David_D , then I'm sure I've commented the most. I'm certainly not "up in arms" about it, just surprised you want to dismiss the suggestion out of hand. I've listed many reputable sources (not counting Chris Claremont or Rob Leifeld) that are separate sources for what I've posited here. How other comic aficionados can't see it reminds Mulder trying to prove something to Scully...
I get the resistance to this theory because I know that Marvel making mutants disappear isn’t going to destroy FOX, it destroys the X-Men – the concept Stan Lee and Jack Kirby developed. If that happens then Marvel becomes the villain. I think it's going to happen. You guys disagree and I understand that. You're both welcome to respond if you want to get the last word; here's mine.
Disney / Marvel are motivated to limit promotional assistance to FOX in any way they can manage regarding the two licensed properties they FOX holds, because for whatever reason the two companies aren't playing nice because of the X-Men and Fantastic Four film properties. I and many others believe we are seeing the beginnings of (and can expect we'll continue to see) the collateral damage caused by this in the publishing and licensing realm until the two companies work something out. Disney can afford to be petty. Disney got Star Wars from FOX. That hurt. Now with Deadpool on the way, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Merc with the Mouth also loses his comic book series. Comic characters can survive just about everything except the cost of doing business.
So, I'm dwelling on it...not you? Up to this post I've got you at least 7 times posting about it. I'm at about 5, 2 or 3 aren't even about the (purported) title cancelations & studio issues. They're directed toward you specifically.
I'm not dwelling on the Fox vs. Marvel stuff. I'm more dwelling on what you seem to be all up in arms about it.
This is a comic book universe...planets live, planets die. Titles get canceled, titles get relaunched, rebooted, renumbered.
M
I agree, Matt. Seems like an awful amount of armchair quarterbacking about company decisions and motivations that no one has proper information on. Not the first time I've seen said poster "fight to the end" trying to be "right".
If Marvel was really against Fantastic Four, Spider-Man and the X-Men they certainly didn't show it in the most recent special last Tuesday. They talked extensively about the FF being the thing that kicked off the Marvel Age and then they showed the X-Men and Spider-Man quite a bit. That's an awfully wide scope of showing off those characters and branding them as Marvel to the masses - which is who that special was for, not really for comic fans. So there's evidence of Marvel wanting to include those properties not shun them. Haha.
And even more has been revealed about the X-event being published next summer:
Yep. New Age of Apocalype comics next summer. Pretty likely to feature Apocalypse... the titular villain of the next X-Men movie from Fox in 2016, X-Men: Apocalypse.
Oh, and according to the solicits, Apocalypse himself returns in the 'third act' issues of the current Avengers & X-Men: Axis event. Here's a just-released cover with him, on a cover that, I think, actually features entirely characters that Fox and Sony have for movies on it:
Gee. All these Marvel events next year that have been announced, Civil War, Age of Ultron vs. Marvel Zombies, X-Men: Years of Future Past, Planet Hulk, Armor Wars, House of M, Infinity Gauntlet, Old Man Logan, Age of Apocalypse, Future Imperfect, Spider-Man's Marriage, Avengers vs X-Men, X-Men '92, End of the Ultimate Universe, and a new one Inhumans: Attilan Rising. Fifteen teasers with the time of "Summer 2015" written on them and five of them directly related to the X-Men somehow.
I see no indication that this Age of Apocalypse story will tie into the X-Men: Apocalypse movie since the FOX film isn't scheduled to be released until mid-2016 about a year later. Somewhat hard to get around the fact that most of what Marvel's been unveiling is stuff that it's already done before. Could there be ANY chance that these alternate reality events next summer would possibly lead to any characters or universes going away...?
Regarding my previous posts, of course I get that Marvel would never make a business decision to cut off it's own nose to spite it's face regarding FOX, but they're now owned by Disney, who I doubt likes the idea of the X-Men making money for another movie company. I think it's odd no one else sees any motivation for Disney to want to marginalize that property as much as possible if not completely. But thankfully no one is dwelling on it :)
Gee. All these Marvel events next year that have been announced, Civil War, Age of Ultron vs. Marvel Zombies, X-Men: Years of Future Past, Planet Hulk, Armor Wars, House of M, Infinity Gauntlet, Old Man Logan, Age of Apocalypse, Future Imperfect, Spider-Man's Marriage, Avengers vs X-Men, X-Men '92, End of the Ultimate Universe, and a new one Inhumans: Attilan Rising. Fifteen teasers with the time of "Summer 2015" written on them and five of them directly related to the X-Men somehow.
I see no indication that this Age of Apocalypse story will tie into the X-Men: Apocalypse movie since the FOX film isn't scheduled to be released until mid-2016 about a year later. Somewhat hard to get around the fact that most of what Marvel's been unveiling is stuff that it's already done before. Could there be ANY chance that these alternate reality events next summer would possibly lead to any characters or universes going away...?
Regarding my previous posts, of course I get that Marvel would never make a business decision to cut off it's own nose to spite it's face regarding FOX, but they're now owned by Disney, who I doubt likes the idea of the X-Men making money for another movie company. I think it's odd no one else sees any motivation for Disney to want to marginalize that property as much as possible if not completely. But thankfully no one is dwelling on it :)
My point is that, for a publishing division that is supposedly so bent of marginalizing and providing no cross-promotion to Fox's movies, it seems like funny timing to bring back Apocalypse himself to the comics for the first time in five years. The collected editions of Axis and the new Age of Apocalypse should be ready for 2016, to be put on a bookstore display when the movie comes out. Yeah. I'm sure it is a coincidence.
But that's the thing. The comics are not about promoting or marginalizing the movies. The comics haven't had the power to do that in decades. The comics are about selling comics. And, when given the chance, the publishing division is going to use the movies and the TV shows to help sell more comics. That is what the publishing divisions job is. To sell comics.
And when Marvel sells X-Men comics, they aren't making money for Fox. They are making money for Marvel.
When Marvel sells X-Men toys (and who cares if they didn't make many specific to X-Men: Days of Future Past. (Though they did make some though, sorry, kids, no Nixon figure!). It is not like the toy aisle of a Toys R' Us or a Walmart doesn't have a Wolverine to buy. And it doesn't matter to Marvel is a kid buys a classic Wolverine or a 1960s tan leather jacket Logan figure. If they buy A Wolverine, then they have bought from Marvel. To not push DOFP-specific toys is not the same thing as taking X-Men toys off the market.
People can run all the conspiracy theories they want. But most of the people trying to make a mountain out of a Claremont quote and a Liefeld tweet have some clicks to sell you. And I think there are some essential misunderstandings going on about how the underlying business works of a 'character based entertainment company' for whom making movies is just one of several platforms. And in how many ways that Marvel, as the owner of these properties, still gets to win in the end.
To push the Guardians figures over the X-Men figures is not the business of punishing Fox. It is the business of getting a kid (or an adult) who already has Wolverine figures to also buy a Rocket. It is getting the kid whose Wolverine Halloween costume still fits them to get a Starlord one for this year. Because it isn't an either/or when you are the licensor. No matter which one they pick, the house still wins.
You can choose to see the X-Men having three (so far) big events they are involved in next year, and being combined with top selling titles like the Avengers and The Guardians as a sign that they must be getting rid of them. But I just see big event business as usual from a publishing division that tries to sell as much X as the market will bear.
If you think it is odd that any of us don't see why Disney would want to marginalize the X-Men as a property, and therefore make Marvel do so, my response is: Historically, how does Disney feel about making money?
If they get rid of the X-Men, and keep them gone, then feel free to tell us you told us so.
Comments
That it's not gives them a little leverage to engage in a pissing contest with Fox, because even though we know they're going to bring the title back at some point, that they're not bothering to publish it leading up to and during the release of the film tells me that at the very least they're not getting on board with promoting the film much or even at all. And I don't blame them, because everything I've read about it so far doesn't give me much confidence. If it's a train wreck, best to stay out of the way, then sift through the wreckage when it's done.
My theory, which may be just as ridiculous as the others being tossed around, is that more than the FF, Marvel would love to get their hands on Galactus, Silver Surfer, Skrulls, Annihilus, Negative Zone... I'm wondering, would Adam Warlock fall under FF, since he was introduced in that title? That's a lot of cosmic concepts that would work well with a Guardians franchise or any spin-offs that may result from it. It must drive some people at Marvel nuts to see all those concepts tied up with a studio that doesn't seem to know what to do with them.
Treat the film viewers to the same experience that comic book readers have in an extended marvel universe. Especially a cohesive Marvel U as it existed in the 70s and 80s. As a kid, I was acutely aware that other super heroes and teams existed in Marvel's world, and they were having their own adventures at the same time as the ones that I was reading about in the books that I religiously purchased. However, even though I couldn't afford to get EVERYTHING, I had a sense that other stuff was happening elsewhere at the same time. Every once in a while, I would dive into another book midstream... it didn't take more than an issue or two to get caught up with those "new" characters.
In Marvel's cinematic world, you could easily do the same thing with the FF. They have been there all along, we just haven't been privy to what they have been doing. The film would be the "issue" that the viewer has finally picked up to get on board.
Another case that was a tad better when it came to the source material but still failed was Steel. There were a lot of problems with this movie but to begin, they got Shaquille O'Neal to play the lead. I realize he had the look to play John Henry Irons but I would have been better to have someone who could act to play your lead. The story itself wasn't so bad. It actually had more to do with the character's comic origins than Catwoman but everything about Steel's costume and abilities were just not the same. It just didn't feel like the character from the comics and again, a big reason as to why it bombed.
Now, I don't mind changes or deviations from the source material. I'm not beholden to things if you make it make sense. I know it's a mixed reaction but I've always liked the organic web shooters from Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. It was a slight change but it didn't change who the character was. I see too many changes in this Fantastic Four reboot to make me overly excited. If you make a movie where the characters are the characters in name only, you lose the essence of what made these characters interesting and beloved and you might as well just make a different movie all-together. I have heard nothing about this Fantastic Four movie that makes me think it's going to be about the characters I've read about in the comics which doesn't make me invested in this movie. I will of course check out the trailers and maybe I'll be wrong but as of now, I'm simply not impressed with what I know about this movie.
And look who are featured prominently on the just-revealed cover to Secret Wars #1? Reed and Ben.
So for a publishing division that is supposedly doing the anti-Fox dirty work of making the Fantastic Four disappear from the shelves... a Secret Wars #1 with them and X-Men on the cover seems a funny way to go about that spite.
What is actually matters more to the readers, and to the viability of the characters: the FF not being on the cover of that '75 Years of Marvel' giveaway puff piece that was supposedly a smoking gun of Marvel hating Fox? Or FF characters being on the cover (and, I would guess, in the story) of what might be Marvel's biggest book of the year?
Maybe the Bleeding Cool rumor mongering/ conspiracy theory around the Fantastic Four cancellation was so much hokum and clickbait speculation.
(Wouldn't be the first time)
I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement.
My larger point when posting the video was that if you're going to wipe out some titles/characters (for the foreseeable future) then obviously you'd want them front and center for such a gambit. Sell as many issues as you can. I think this method is very savvy actually. If I were going to promote the (supposed) end of two of my legacy properties for ANY reason (including to spite FOX), I'd make a HUGE deal about it.
Perhaps our disagreement is that you don't think Marvel would do any such thing, or stoop so low, or be so petty, ergo this must all be a silly rumor. I disagree. That's all.
1.) you're upset that Marvel (supposedly) eliminated FF,
2.) you're upset it doesn't look like Marvel is going to eliminate the X-titles,
3.) you're upset because Marvel (supposedly) is eliminating the X-titles,
4.) you're upset because no one else is upset about any (supposed) title eliminations, or
5.) you're upset because Marvel can do whatever they want with their titles?
M
Those who don't read comic books will have zero idea the titles were canceled or really notice the merchandise featuring the characters have dropped off.
At this point the name "Marvel" is what is getting the general public into the theatre.
I get the feeling you're fired up about it because you seem to be the only one dwelling on it & trying to find evidence to support your concerns.
M
Rather, because there comes a point, as small as a piece of the overall pie as publishing is, when that division would have to start justifying why they are cancelling that many successful books and leaving all that money on the table. "Because Perlmutter is mad at Fox" would not be a sufficient answer to those whose main interest is the bottom line. This is a public company. There is a limit to how much any one person can do to satisfy their own personal emotions or spite before there are consequences.
I also maintain the Bleeding Cool's (and others') initial premise is faulty. Both because taking the FF off the shelves of direct market comic book stores wouldn't be noticed by the general moviegoing public.
And, even if what characters were on the stands DID matter to Fox, well then instead of there being a midlist selling FF title puttering along at the time of the movie, we are instead going to have a promoted and publicized big finish triple sized issue shortly before the movie, at the same time FF characters are on the covers of other high selling books like Axis, Avengers, and now right on the cover of the big summer event book.
If this is the strategy of spite, to make the FF seem like IP-nongrata at Marvel, then publishing is doing a poor job of following those orders.
And the idea of cancelling all the X-books to spite Fox, given how well they sell, and how the X-characters continue to be merchandising juggernauts, is so ridiculous of a rumor as to be a non-starter.
That Marvel, either just in publishing, or across all their platforms, are doing a 'wait-and-see' approach; and that if the new version of the Fantastic Four DOES succeed, then the comics version of that brand changes to align with the movie brand. OR, if the movie fails, then they make a splashy, #1 relaunch return of the back-to-basics, Classic Coke FF, and lapsed readers mad at the movie can celebrate the return of the FF with their dollars. But in the interim, FF as a monthly title is suspended, keeping their title in limbo (even at the same time the characters are being used in other titles, and events.)
If that is true, then having them involved in a Multiple Earths kind of event makes for a good narrative opportunity to make the 616 FF disappear, and to introduce a younger, different looking FF from another Earth.
Because, remember, the high profile real estate of event books at Marvel has much more often become a place to launch new titles FROM, rather than to be a place to bury titles that aren't working.
And regarding more "evidence" to support my concerns, here's a sample of recent articles regarding the feud:
☻ How Disney's Marvel Is Crippling Fox's X-Men Movies With Comics
☻ Marvel Legend Chris Claremont Says There's a Ban On New X-Men Characters to Hurt Fox Studios
☻ Marvel’s Vendetta against Fox Continues
☻ Marvel’s dealings with Spider-Man, X-Men, and Fantastic Four are a mess right now
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but did anyone spot any X-Men: Days of Future Past toys this year? I didn't. So, whatever the reasons for Marvel's actions regarding X-Men and Fantastic Four, perhaps we can all agree that sometimes a franchise just needs a rest. Maybe this debate does as well...
I can believe his claim that there may be a resistance or even freeze to introducing new X-characters that could become connected to the Fox license.
(Though I think the writer at Motley Fool probably doesn't understand that a "No New X-Men Characters!" mandate would actually not hurt them a bit, given:
A. How huge of a caralogue there already is and
B. How much less audiences are interested in the new characters vs. the ones they grew up in and have already seen in cartoons and video games.
Given that they are only now getting around to things like a Deadpool or Gambit movie, and their next big bad is from nearly 30 years ago, I don't expect that Fox execs are waiting with baited breath to see if Claremont might introduce a new character in the pages of Nightcrawler, you know what I mean?
But that sort of freeze on new characters strategy, as well as the strategy of choosing to emphasize the properties you own across the board vs. the ones licensed out, is a FAR cry from the idea of canceling all X-books to actually get rid of them (as opposed to just relaunching them and selling more, as usual.). If that is what you are suggesting might happen, then I think that is a concern that can be laid to rest.
But, I guess time will tell.
I'm not dwelling on the Fox vs. Marvel stuff. I'm more dwelling on what you seem to be all up in arms about it.
This is a comic book universe...planets live, planets die. Titles get canceled, titles get relaunched, rebooted, renumbered.
M
I get the resistance to this theory because I know that Marvel making mutants disappear isn’t going to destroy FOX, it destroys the X-Men – the concept Stan Lee and Jack Kirby developed. If that happens then Marvel becomes the villain. I think it's going to happen. You guys disagree and I understand that. You're both welcome to respond if you want to get the last word; here's mine.
Disney / Marvel are motivated to limit promotional assistance to FOX in any way they can manage regarding the two licensed properties they FOX holds, because for whatever reason the two companies aren't playing nice because of the X-Men and Fantastic Four film properties. I and many others believe we are seeing the beginnings of (and can expect we'll continue to see) the collateral damage caused by this in the publishing and licensing realm until the two companies work something out. Disney can afford to be petty. Disney got Star Wars from FOX. That hurt. Now with Deadpool on the way, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Merc with the Mouth also loses his comic book series. Comic characters can survive just about everything except the cost of doing business.
If Marvel was really against Fantastic Four, Spider-Man and the X-Men they certainly didn't show it in the most recent special last Tuesday. They talked extensively about the FF being the thing that kicked off the Marvel Age and then they showed the X-Men and Spider-Man quite a bit. That's an awfully wide scope of showing off those characters and branding them as Marvel to the masses - which is who that special was for, not really for comic fans. So there's evidence of Marvel wanting to include those properties not shun them. Haha.
Yep. New Age of Apocalype comics next summer. Pretty likely to feature Apocalypse... the titular villain of the next X-Men movie from Fox in 2016, X-Men: Apocalypse.
Oh, and according to the solicits, Apocalypse himself returns in the 'third act' issues of the current Avengers & X-Men: Axis event. Here's a just-released cover with him, on a cover that, I think, actually features entirely characters that Fox and Sony have for movies on it:
So take that, Fox!
I see no indication that this Age of Apocalypse story will tie into the X-Men: Apocalypse movie since the FOX film isn't scheduled to be released until mid-2016 about a year later. Somewhat hard to get around the fact that most of what Marvel's been unveiling is stuff that it's already done before. Could there be ANY chance that these alternate reality events next summer would possibly lead to any characters or universes going away...?
Regarding my previous posts, of course I get that Marvel would never make a business decision to cut off it's own nose to spite it's face regarding FOX, but they're now owned by Disney, who I doubt likes the idea of the X-Men making money for another movie company. I think it's odd no one else sees any motivation for Disney to want to marginalize that property as much as possible if not completely. But thankfully no one is dwelling on it :)
But that's the thing. The comics are not about promoting or marginalizing the movies. The comics haven't had the power to do that in decades. The comics are about selling comics. And, when given the chance, the publishing division is going to use the movies and the TV shows to help sell more comics. That is what the publishing divisions job is. To sell comics.
And when Marvel sells X-Men comics, they aren't making money for Fox. They are making money for Marvel.
When Marvel sells X-Men toys (and who cares if they didn't make many specific to X-Men: Days of Future Past. (Though they did make some though, sorry, kids, no Nixon figure!). It is not like the toy aisle of a Toys R' Us or a Walmart doesn't have a Wolverine to buy. And it doesn't matter to Marvel is a kid buys a classic Wolverine or a 1960s tan leather jacket Logan figure. If they buy A Wolverine, then they have bought from Marvel. To not push DOFP-specific toys is not the same thing as taking X-Men toys off the market.
People can run all the conspiracy theories they want. But most of the people trying to make a mountain out of a Claremont quote and a Liefeld tweet have some clicks to sell you. And I think there are some essential misunderstandings going on about how the underlying business works of a 'character based entertainment company' for whom making movies is just one of several platforms. And in how many ways that Marvel, as the owner of these properties, still gets to win in the end.
To push the Guardians figures over the X-Men figures is not the business of punishing Fox. It is the business of getting a kid (or an adult) who already has Wolverine figures to also buy a Rocket. It is getting the kid whose Wolverine Halloween costume still fits them to get a Starlord one for this year. Because it isn't an either/or when you are the licensor. No matter which one they pick, the house still wins.
You can choose to see the X-Men having three (so far) big events they are involved in next year, and being combined with top selling titles like the Avengers and The Guardians as a sign that they must be getting rid of them. But I just see big event business as usual from a publishing division that tries to sell as much X as the market will bear.
If you think it is odd that any of us don't see why Disney would want to marginalize the X-Men as a property, and therefore make Marvel do so, my response is: Historically, how does Disney feel about making money?
If they get rid of the X-Men, and keep them gone, then feel free to tell us you told us so.