Marvel Studios Doesn't Own the Rights to all of Their Characters...and that's a Good Thing

Marvel Studios Doesn't Own the Rights to all of Their Characters...and that's a Good Thing

There seems to be a sizable contingent of fans that want the rights of certain Marvel characters currently owned by Sony and Fox to revert back to Marvel Studios. What…are you nuts?

Editorial Opinion
By Citizen - Jul 18, 2013 08:07 PM EST
Filed Under: Avengers

Here at CBM, we hear (read) it all the time. Fans want franchises like the Fantastic Four, X-Men and Spider-Man to fail at their respective studios so their rights will revert back to Marvel Studios. And while it’s somewhat understandable why some fans would want those rights to revert back to Marvel, those wishes are misguided at best.

First of all, while some of you will probably disagree, the X-Men and Spider-Man franchises are not crap. Are they what we wanted? No, not exactly. Is what we got, crap? No. Not even close. We’ve discussed this at length in the past, but the truth is what we’ve seen in the comic books doesn’t always translate well to live action/big screen production, so amends have to be made. Granted, Sony should not have killed off the Green Goblin in the original Spider-Man. Clearly they jumped the shark on that one, but I’m pretty sure it was because they envisioned their Spider-Man franchise as a trilogy, so I get it. I don’t agree with it, but I get it. And Fox went with a conglomeration of old (original) X-Men and New X-Men, and then went with the “original” X-Men that only included one original X-Man in the bunch (Beast)—Professor-X aside. I don’t get that either, but I did like all four films, especially X-Men (II) United and X-Men: First Class. Were any of them what we wanted or expected? No. Were they crap? No, unless you’re a diehard/hardcore fan that refuses to allow a little leeway in the movie interpretations of their favorite comics, to which I would suggest you let go of your X-Men’s Angel blanky and let your mommy wash it. Seriously…it’s time to wash that tear stained thing. She’ll bring it back. I promise.

Unless you’re 16, that is…

Marvel Studios didn’t come into prominence until 2008, with the release of Iron Man. Since then they’ve produced seven movies for the big screen. That’s seven movies over the past four-plus years (The Avengers was their only movie in 2012, but what a movie it was). But if you go back to the early 2000’s, when X-Men and Spider-Man came out and got the ball rolling, twenty-four Marvel movies related to Marvel franchises have graced the big screen—some of them well received, some of them not so much.

But none of them crap. Well, except for Elektra. I’ll give you that one.

What’s that you say? Fantastic Four was crap as well? Ghost Rider was craptastic? And the first Hulk movie, with Eric Bana, was crapulisous? Well, understanding the old saying that one man’s trash is another man’s gold, you might want to hold off on those ratings for a second or two.

When Ghost Rider came out, a lot of people dissed the movie for all assorted reasons. But after Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance came out I noticed a shift in fan perception when comparing the two. Suddenly the special effects and story of the original were not as bad as previously thought. It’s funny how that works, right? We see something and think, “That’s crap.” Then we see a different version and think, “You know what? What I thought was crap doesn’t look so bad anymore.” I’m not saying both Ghost Rider movies were great. What I’m saying is one was clearly better than the other—the first movie being the better one, after so many trampled all over it upon its release.

Hindsight. What a wonderful concept.

It was the same way with the Fantastic Four, a franchise that turned out to be a double-edged sword, so to speak. The first movie did in fact twist around somewhat the origins of Marvel’s first superhero family and Doctor Doom, and the sequel completely bastardized the world consuming character of Galactus, to the point of unrecognizable. But both had their strong points, most notably the Thing, Human Torch and Silver Surfer. Jessica Alba was clearly miscast as Sue Storm, and Reed Richards’ portrayal wasn’t brainy enough, although we can’t fault Ioan Gruffudd solely, and I don’t want to get started on the Galactus debacle. But as for the other “highlights” of those movies, it worked. Were the movies crap? No. Were they what we wanted or were expecting? Sort of, but not really.

My point is that it’s a good thing that multiple studios own the rights to some of Marvel’s characters, as well as other comic book properties. It’s a good thing because if they didn’t, we’d all be sitting back waiting, and waiting, and still waiting for the next Spiderman or X-Men movie to come out, because Marvel/Disney has made it clear they’re only going to put out two Marvel properties a year—with maybe a third once in a great while.

With movie rights staying where they are, between now and 2015 we’re going to get the following Marvel related movies…

2013:
Iron Man 3
Thor: The Dark World

2014:
Amazing Spiderman 2
X-Men: Days of Future Past
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy
Fantastic Four (reboot…or should this be in 2015?)

2015:
Avengers 2
Ant-Man

That’s nine movies in a three year window.

Now take a look at WB’s schedule, as they own the movie rights to all DC characters. We got the Batman trilogy, over a seven year period, with Green Lantern and Man of Steel thrown in to stretch it out to eight years. That’s five movies in eight years, a little over one movie every two years. I don’t know, maybe I’m crazy, but it looks to me like Marvel’s current situation, with other studios owning the rights to some of their characters is in our favor.

So the question is: Do you only want to see two or three Marvel character movies a year, or would you rather prefer three or four a year? Because if Marvel/Disney gets the movie rights to all of their properties back, that’s what you’re going to get…two movies a year, with a third slipped in once in a while.

Case in point: Marvel just recently got the rights back to Daredevil, but who knows when we’ll see their version of the character. I’m sure they’ll do it, but it might be five more years or longer until we see it.

So the next time you think you’d like to see all of Marvel’s characters revert back to Marvel Studios, just understand that if that happens, it may mean better true to the source material movies—but we’re going to have to wait a while to see them. And probably a long while.

I’m Citizen…

RUMOR: New Details On Why YOUNG AVENGERS Is Now CHAMPIONS; More On DAREDEVIL, HAWKEYE Season 2, And NOVA
Related:

RUMOR: New Details On Why YOUNG AVENGERS Is Now CHAMPIONS; More On DAREDEVIL, HAWKEYE Season 2, And NOVA

VIDEO: The MCU's YOUNG AVENGERS Assemble For The First Time...Aboard Disney Treasure Cruise Ship
Recommended For You:

VIDEO: The MCU's YOUNG AVENGERS Assemble For The First Time...Aboard Disney Treasure Cruise Ship

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Transforminator
Transforminator - 7/18/2013, 8:42 PM
Quality will always beat quantity.
superotherside
superotherside - 7/18/2013, 11:05 PM
I never liked any of Fox's CBMs. I've talked with most that I know (non-CBMers) and they all say they were terrible too. So it's not just the comic fans that dislike them. Sony's Spider-man was good for its time. I still love it but now we need something a bit closer to the actual comics. And that isn't TASM.

The problem with your logic is that if we had each character owned by a separate studio then they might produce a movie for that character every year. Then hundreds of movies if not millions of CBM's flood the market. Would that be a good thing?

No.

What's the difference? If they make them bad, misrepresenting the character for an audience which doesn't know about them, then what good is it? In fact it makes the audience dislike the character! So just because we have more bad films that's good? Sorry, but very flawed logic there.

As Transforminator said quality over quantity folks.
FishTacoLover
FishTacoLover - 7/18/2013, 11:09 PM
People don't seem to understand how if Marvel owned all their properties they would be completely burned out with the amount of movies they would have to make. Eventually we would get a bunch of bad superhero movies over a really long period of time
Wallymelon
Wallymelon - 7/18/2013, 11:26 PM
100% agree buddy! these cbmers go crazy on the wrong movies and want the silliest things. youre right man kids waaay tooo attached to their comics. the movies are different, they will always be a lil different, and i welcome that interpretation. i want more movies a year, i wish marvel would sell daredevil punisher and ghostrider and luke cage so they can get some other studio to make them.
Orphix
Orphix - 7/19/2013, 12:32 AM
I pretty much agree with the article. Making movies is both expensive and time consuming - no one studio can take it on and do it any quicker or bigger.

I think another important aspect of the argument is the fact that we have a Marvel Studios at all is because they sold the rights to their biggest characters. Without that income Marvel would probably have gone bankrupt. Marvel still get cash everytime an X-men or Spiderman film is a success and Fiege still executive produces some of these films.
digymastr
digymastr - 7/19/2013, 12:37 AM
Why not have both quality and quantity? Having one studio handle all Marvel characters can be an undertaking and take a great amount of time to accomplish. By spreading out the work load among studios, we could get movies while decreasing the risk of quality.
6of13
6of13 - 7/19/2013, 3:10 AM
If Marvel had the movie rights to all their characters, what are the chances that there would be GOTG or Doc Strange when there is Spider-Man and X-Men? Probably very unlikely that Black Panther, Doc Strange, Sub-Mariner, GOTG would be made at all given that Spider-Man and X-Men and more Avenger movies would be given the green light instead.

Quality over quantity is not always the most ideal scenario. I say diversity is even more important because I like Spider-Man, but after a while it gets tiresome seeing the same character again and again. So bring on Doc Strange, Black Panther, GOTG and whatever Fox has planned for their X-universe.
Citizen
Citizen - 7/19/2013, 6:46 AM
While I agree with the basic concept of "quality over quantity," we all know that the reality of "quality" is subjective, which falls into categories like "One man's trash..." and "To each their own," etc.

A lot of people didn't like Iron Man 3, and yet it's Marvel's second biggest money maker to date, grossing close (if not just over) $1.3 billion.

My point in the article is that multiple studios owning the rights to Marvel and DC characters gives us our best shot at seeing more than two or three CBMs a year, that's all. WB owns DC, and yet all they've given us, since 1989, is seven Batman movies, six Superman movies, and one Green Lantern in the last 24 years, excluding TV series. That's 14 movies in 24 years, just a tad over one movie every other year. I'd be fine with five or six CBMs every year, or at least most years, and sort through which ones are quality and which ones aren't, rather than sit around waiting two years for the next Batman or Spider-man or Superman movie to come out.

Wouldn't you?
Forthas
Forthas - 7/19/2013, 7:03 AM
I would have completely agreed with you three years ago, but in this age of potential crossover movies especially with Marvel characters, it would be ideal that despite using several movie studios there was a mechanism (agreement) that would allow for jointly produced movies that Marvel had the ability to put together. In other words Marvel has the right to use the same actors from one studio's production in another Marvel based franchise. Under that scenario it would be the perfect situation. Between the Avengers and X-Men franchise there is should be no reason why Quicksilver can't be the same actor and reference X-men characters like his father Magneto while in an Avengers movie.
marvel72
marvel72 - 7/19/2013, 7:04 AM
if marvel studios had the rights to all their characters you wouldn't be seeing the likes of guardians of the galaxy,dr.strange & ant-man.

we'd have spider-man,fantastic four,x-men,daredevil,the avengers,the incredible hulk & the silver surfer movies.

i'm alright other studios owning the rights just as long as they make good movies.

x-men 2
spider-man
spider-man 2

are the only very good movies from the other studios,the rest the less said the better.
TheSuperguy
TheSuperguy - 7/19/2013, 9:59 AM
I'm fine with different franchises being owned by different studios as long as they put out good material. X-Men, X2, and First Class were fantastic films, and the Wolverine and DOFP both look awesome. Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 are some of my favorite comic book movies of all time. The Amazing Spider-Man wasn't a bad movie, but I didn't think it was particularly great one, either. It was an entertaining film, and that is what it needed to be. And it was extremely close to the source material. (I thought Raimi's films were extremely faithful to the comic books as well.) I just wish that movie studios could get along. I don't need to see the X-Men, FF, Spider-Man, and the Avengers team up, but I would like to see them all in the same universe.
Wallymelon
Wallymelon - 7/19/2013, 12:24 PM
wolverine and spiderman or any other xmen as avengers would be suuuuuper wack. especially the people that are playing them today. i dont like never have liked them as avengers but i do like seeing them interact with each other, just cant stand when spiderman or wolverine is an actual avenger. just doesnt make sense to me.
shf4839
shf4839 - 7/19/2013, 12:56 PM
I think the other studios as long as they take their time and put out a good/great film is fine its, when they get in a hurry and put out something like the spirit of vengeance, that I have an issue, I enjoyed tasm mostly because they nailed the humor and their wasn't any Saturday night fever references.

Could Peter Parker have been better represented, maybe, for example the scene where he comes to the kids aid that flash is picking on was unnecessary or should I say the kid was unnecessary it would have been interesting if he was the one flash just walked up to and started bullying for no reason, then they could play off of after he gets his abilities how power can corrupt and he realizes that he himself has become a bully, before he becomes the hero he is meant to be.

Back on topic of studios one thing I would actually like to see marvel do, is potentially copy warner brothers, Guillermo Del Torro's Justice League Dark sounds like a very interesting project to me, and I think that rather than put out separate movies for Daredevil, Punisher, Ghost Rider and Blade they could potentially be used as a team themselves to fight the other side of crime, maybe even add in Luke Cage and possibly Iron Fist for like an Avengers Dark.

I am also greatly looking forward to the new xmen projects I think they could be very interesting as long as they are done correctly
WYLEEJAY
WYLEEJAY - 7/19/2013, 1:27 PM
I would love to see...
Daredevil
Heroes for Hire
Captain Marvel
Ms Marvel
Nova
Namor
Venom
Deadpool
Etc get their own movies as quick as possible. That would be awesome! At the same time, calming down my inner fanboy, I realize that it would be better to space out some of these characters, that way they can still introduce us to original stories and characters, in the General Publics eye I mean. They don't know most of these characters. So if they introduce them slowly, there's a better chance of the general public not getting bored with the genre. Unfortunately we fans only make up about ten percent of the box office.
Armageddon26
Armageddon26 - 7/19/2013, 2:51 PM
2013:
Iron Man 3
Thor: The Dark World
The Wolverine
Kick-Ass (if you count it)

2014:
Amazing Spiderman 2
X-Men: Days of Future Past
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy
Fantastic Four (reboot…or should this be in 2015?)
Big Hero 6 (if you count that, I do)

2015:
Avengers 2
Ant-Man

Based on what I count, theatrical releases only, I am getting 12 Marvel films in three years, if Marvel had all the rights I'd only be getting around 6. Selling off their properties is one thing I have always supported
marvel72
marvel72 - 7/19/2013, 3:41 PM
@ VIRILEMAN

i forgot about blade,sorry mate the amazing spider-man would be lucky to make my top ten marvel movies.

1st the avengers
2nd iron man
3rd spider-man 2
4th x-men 2
5th spider-man
6th blade
7th captain america the first avenger
8th thor
9th the incredible hulk
10th iron man 2
Citizen
Citizen - 7/19/2013, 4:39 PM
It does kind of make you wonder what we'd get every year, if DC loaned out some of their properties to other studios.

Like Armageddon26 points out, not only are there going to be 12 Marvel character films coming out over a three year period, but all of them will be about different characters, except for Avengers 2, of course.

Then maybe we could get a Flash, Wonder Woman, Teen Titans and others over the course of the next five years. But no, WB wants to hold on to their properties, which is their right, but last I heard nothing is etched in stone as to when we'll see the next one. Man of Steel 2? World's Finest? Justice League of America? I'm sure they'll give us something in 2015, but who knows what it'll be (I seriously doubt it's JLA).

For my two cents, if they're smart they'll give us MoS 2 in 2015, and then World's Finest and JLA in 2016. But that's just my opinion, what I'd like to see.
kong
kong - 7/19/2013, 5:43 PM
Ant Man is not in 2015 and FF is in 2015
Citizen
Citizen - 7/19/2013, 6:10 PM
Ant-Man IS in 2015, right after Avengers 2. Well, that is unless you know something the rest of us don't.
LoudNoises
LoudNoises - 7/19/2013, 7:35 PM
I would love for Marvel to have a stab at an X-men movie however I do see a silver lining in Marvel not having those major character rights at this time. If they had X-men and Spiderman they may not feel the need to delve so deep into the Marvel Universe as the seem to be doing now. Guardians of the Galaxy? Dr. Strange? Thanos??!! We may have never gotten these characters if Marvel was busy developing new X-men and Spiderman movies along with all the solo movies that might coincide with them. Marvel looked at the situation and basically said F it, we are going to take our lesser known characters and show these other studios how it's done!
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 7/20/2013, 5:42 AM
Lol. Just because the first Ghost Rider movie was slightly better than the sequel does not mean that either of them were good movies. Both films were horrible representations of the character and both were terrible movies. To quote the movie "Waiting", one horrible movie being better than another horrible movie is "like being the smartest kid with down syndrome".

But the funny thing about all of this is that you seem to want MORE movies over QUALITY movies.

Spidey has been represented pretty well over the years on film but the X-Men have not. That seems to be something you are overlooking. Representation.

Fox has a way of changing things around. Im not saying the comics need to be adapted perfectly, but at least represent the characters correctly. That is something that Fox fails miserably at.
Citizen
Citizen - 7/22/2013, 7:15 PM
CorndogBurglar,

I never said either of the Ghost Rider movies were good. My point was that when "Ghost Rider" came out, most dismissed it, calling it horrible. But after "Spirit of Vengeance" came out, most looked upon "Ghost Rider" more favorably.

In response to your observation that I "want MORE movies over QUALITY movies," you completely disregarded my observation that "a quality" movie is subjective as to whether or not it's a quality movie or not, to each of us as individuals.

Like I said, one man's trash is another man's gold, so you don't get to decide what's quality and what's not, for me or anyone else. If you didn't like X-Men: First Class, I can understand why, but for me personally, I loved it. Yes, I wanted to see the original team, probably just like you, but that's not what they did, they didn't follow the source material. Does that make it a "low quality" movie? Not in my book.

Sony and Sam Raimi blew off years of Green Goblin vs. Spider-Man history and killed off GG in the first movie. I didn't and still don't agree with that call, but it was still a "quality" movie to me. Again, to each their own.

My point is that the movie rights to Marvel characters are owned by multiple studios, which means we get "more" of them each year, instead of just "two" a year.

In closing, Marvel Studios produced Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3, two movies that fans cried about, even though IM3 grossed over $1.2 billion, which is HUGE by any standard, which begs the question: What's quality--what you or I think of it or should it be based on how much money it makes?

Like someone else pointed out, with the movie rights to Spider-Man and X-Men (and basically all mutants) and the Fantastic Four being owned by other studios, it gives Marvel the leeway to give us movies based on some of our own, more personal favorite characters, like Doctor Strange and Heroes for Hire...and that's a good thing.

That's my point.
View Recorder