X-men: Days of Future past teaser trailer

[fukkyalifestyle]

when you think about it, why didnt marvel just develop the movies in the first place ??? what took them so long to start their own movie company ??? can anyone break down the history of this for me because its confusing

I think they went bankrupt or almost did at one point and sold off alot of rights. then they got some bread and made the first iron man I think.

 

[Dillah810]

when you think about it, why didnt marvel just develop the movies in the first place ??? what took them so long to start their own movie company ??? can anyone break down the history of this for me because its confusing

Marvel was on the verge of going bankrupt so they sold the movie rights to their most popular properties to stay afloat. Marvel wasn't even thinking of making movies themselves at that point.

 

[Box Cutta]

when you think about it, why didnt marvel just develop the movies in the first place ??? what took them so long to start their own movie company ??? can anyone break down the history of this for me because its confusing

Why Can't Marvel's Movie Superheroes Be Friends? - WSJ.com

Why Can't Marvel's Movie Superheroes Be Friends?
A web of conflicting deals prevent them from working together

In the world of Marvel Comics, Manhattan is a small island crowded with superheroes.

Spider-Man, the Avengers, and the Fantastic Four are among the scores of spandex-wearing do-gooders based there since the 1960s. The X-Men have been regular visitors from their home an hour north in Westchester County.

Frequently, they showed up in each other's comics, teaming up to battle megalomaniacal villains by day and grab a drink together at night. Fans were thrilled to see the matchups, friendly or otherwise.

"One of the great things about being a comic-book fan is debating about who would defeat whom," says self-described fanboy Brian Domingo, 31, a public-relations manager in San Francisco.

Now Marvel superheroes are priceless movie properties. They have been among the top five movies at the box office for seven of the past 10 years. This year will see a record four Marvel-based movies, including "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" on May 2, Memorial Day weekend's "X-Men: Days of Future Past" and August's "Guardians of the Galaxy."

The move to Hollywood, however, has broken up the community and even pitted the superheroes against each other. The animated Marvel logo may appear on numerous films, but Spidey won't be hanging with the X-Men—or Captain America. Thanks to complex business deals that go back decades, the cinematic rights to Marvel characters are split among three studios: Disney DIS +0.94% has Iron Man, Captain America, and the Avengers. Sony 6758.TO -0.55% Pictures has Spider-Man. And Twentieth Century Fox FOXA +0.15% has the X-Men and Fantastic Four. The rival studios each have certain exclusive movie rights to the characters.

"I get asked almost every day, 'Why is Spider-Man not in 'Avengers?' 'Why can't there be X-Men vs. Avengers?'" said Umberto Gonzalez, editor of the popular fanboy website Latino Review. "It's massively confusing to most people."

Marvel's first forays into the movies are ones the company would rather erase from history, including an infamous 1994 version of "The Fantastic Four" produced by schlockmeister Roger Corman that was never released.

Frequently on the financial brink and fought over in the 1990s by the likes of corporate raiders Ronald Perelman and Carl Icahn, the company made a series of licensing deals around the time they sought bankruptcy protection in 1996. These deals put Spider-Man in the hands of Sony. The X-Men and Fantastic Four went to Fox. Because the studios were in strong positions, they agreed to share only about 5% of the revenue from each film with Marvel.

Fox's "X-Men" in 2000 and Sony's "Spider-Man" two years later were major hits for Fox and Sony, proving that Marvel superheroes could sell tickets as robustly as rival DC Comics' Batman and Superman had done for Warner Bros.

Eager to share in the spoils with the character it still owned, Marvel in 2005 arranged a $525 million credit facility to start producing its own films. Studio President Kevin Feige, who started his career as an assistant to a producer on "X-Men," planned out the films' interlocking stories years ahead of time and found immediate success with "Iron Man" in 2008, followed by "Thor" and "Captain America" the next year.

By late 2009, Marvel's value had shot up so far so fast that Walt Disney Co. agreed to acquire it for $4 billion. The superhero studio's success only accelerated, peaking in 2012 with "Avengers," which grossed $1.5 billion world-wide.

Both Sony and Fox are in the process of ramping up their Marvel-based movie production to one a year or more, while tapping creative "brain trusts" to map a strategy that ties movies to each other. Their not-so-subtle intention is to replicate the blockbuster success Marvel Studios has had with its two movies a year.

Sony's strategy is particularly audacious. On paper, it has only one superhero and, even on the most accelerated schedule, star Andrew Garfield can only make one "Amazing Spider-Man" movie every other year. So the studio is instead developing movies around Spider-Man's arch-nemesis Venom and the supervillain team the Sinister Six, to be released in between more traditional sequels.

"We were influenced by the monstrous success they've had at Marvel and felt we have a pretty rich universe in the Spider-Man canon," said Doug Belgrad, president of Sony's Columbia Pictures.

Marvel has the right to consult on Fox and Sony's movies as the licenser of the characters. But in practice, people involved in productions said, it has virtually no influence.

While Disney's Marvel movies generally have a light and earnest tone similar to a 1960s comic book, Sony and Fox's productions feel different. With the most recent Spider-Man films, Sony and director Marc Webb have kept their title character more grounded. He's just as focused on his relationships with his family and girlfriend as on his battles against supervillains. X-Men movies, meanwhile, have an almost operatic grandeur and tackle social issues like bigotry and historical events like the Holocaust and the Cold War.

"All of the movies have distinct tones and that's a big part of what defines them against each other," said Simon Kinberg, a writer-producer working on Fox's "X-Men" and "Fantastic Four" films.

Nonetheless, with four or five Marvel-based films in theaters every year for the foreseeable future, nonfanboys may start to feel that they are blending together. Add to this Warner Bros.' DC Comics and its coming "Superman vs. Batman" and "Justice League."

Also confusing is the fact that the studios don't always agree on who controls what character. Marvel's super-speedster Quicksilver has at various times belonged to both the Avengers and the X-Men in comic books and Fox and Disney have each laid claim to him. Different versions of the character, played by different actors, will appear in "Days of Future Past" and next year's "Avengers: Age of Ultron."

Mssrs. Belgrad and Kinberg said they were both intrigued by the idea of combining Marvel characters from different studios in some future film. But the creative and business obstacles are daunting. Not only would two or three studios have to figure out how to share costs and profits, but a filmmaker would have to explain why the heroes have never met before, integrate different tones, and give them all enough screen time in a two-hour story.

Moviegoers who see them all will find this summer's Marvel movies are each ambitious in different ways. With "The Amazing Spider-Man 2," Sony is trying to up the ante on the 2012 reboot with a bigger budget, a more menacing villain played by Jamie Foxx, and an iconic moment from Peter Parker's life in the comics that has never been seen on the big screen. It is also attempting to set up the planned villain spin offs with a story that weaves in the origins of some of them.

In "X-Men: Days of Future Past," meanwhile, Fox is trying to have its "Avengers" moment by teaming the older cast from the original trio of films with the younger actors in 2011's "X-Men: First Class." Patrick Stewart and James McAvoy play older and young versions of Professor X in the time-travel story, while Ian McKellan and Michael Fassbender are the villain Magneto at different ages and Hugh Jackman once again plays a central role as Wolverine.

Marvel, meanwhile, is introducing its first characters from outside the "Avengers" universe with "Guardians of the Galaxy," an outer-space story about a ragtag team that includes a talking racc00n and a living tree.

Even among fanboys, the "Guardians" are a third-tier property at best. Then again, not many people beyond Comic-Con attendees had heard of Iron Man before Robert Downey, Jr. came along.

"I think fans are excited that instead of pumping out sequels, Marvel is going in the opposite direction and taking a real risk," said Lucas Siegel, editor of the comic-book fan site Newsarama. "The goodwill it established with its movies so far goes a long way"

As I understand it, as long as Sony/Fox have a film in progress for the characters for which they have rights to (And as long as the movie actually comes out in a relatively timely manner), they get to keep the rights forever.

From what I understand, Fox did decide at one point to let Daredevil/Elektra go back to Marvel as opposed to making another one. They said fukk it....

Marvel also recently got Ghost Rider back (From Warner Brothers) and Blade (From New Line). They have Punisher now as well. So it's not necessarily dire for them...it's just that, while it may actually have been financially responsible to let a character like Ghost Rider go, X-Men and Spiderman are still guaranteed hits, so why not keep making them?

Honestly, my perspective is that X-Men are better in their own Universe anyways. And Spiderman is fine as a stand-alone as well. Reed Richards not being in The Avengers though....that shyts wack....

 

[JayYoung314]

Why Can't Marvel's Movie Superheroes Be Friends? - WSJ.com



As I understand it, as long as Sony/Fox have a film in progress for the characters for which they have rights to (And as long as the movie actually comes out in a relatively timely manner), they get to keep the rights forever.

From what I understand, Fox did decide at one point to let Daredevil/Elektra go back to Marvel as opposed to making another one. They said fukk it....

Marvel also recently got Ghost Rider back (From Warner Brothers) and Blade (From New Line). They have Punisher now as well. So it's not necessarily dire for them...it's just that, while it may actually have been financially responsible to let a character like Ghost Rider go, X-Men and Spiderman are still guaranteed hits, so why not keep making them?

Honestly, my perspective is that X-Men are better in their own Universe anyways. And Spiderman is fine as a stand-alone as well. Reed Richards not being in The Avengers though....that shyts wack....

reed richards, aint that the stretch dude from fantastic four ??? he was an avenger ???

 

[Box Cutta]

reed richards, aint that the stretch dude from fantastic four ??? he was an avenger ???

Yeah he's been with them on occasion.

His stretching ability is practically nothing compared to his intellect...he's either the first or second smartest person in the Marvel Universe (Pretty much neck in neck with Dr. Doom).

If Marvel owned the rights, he'd almost certainly be on the squad, punking Tony Stark left and right....

 

[Dillah810]

Honestly, my perspective is that X-Men are better in their own Universe anyways. And Spiderman is fine as a stand-alone as well. Reed Richards not being in The Avengers though....that shyts wack....

I agree that X-Men can stand alone in their own universe. X-Men is very deep in characters and villains. Even after Apocalypse, they can up the ante with Onslaught if they want to. They're also already talking about an X-Force movie. Fox just need to get the right writers and producers for the films and they can be just as good for better than the Marvel films.

However, Spiderman can benefit from being included in the Marvel Movie Universe. There's only 1 main hero they can play with for standalone movies. (Technically they can do something with Spiderwoman, but will movie-goers really want to see a female version of Spiderman; and Venom is an anti-hero)

 

[Jplaya2023]

this is stupid why can't these stupid companies just allow marvel the rights to use their own chars in the same movies. Would love to see an Xmen vs Avengers type of movie. Magneto teaming up with Loki would be dope

 

[FlyRy]

92% so far on RT

 

[61 Corpses]

92% so far on RT

 

[FlyRy]

"
Not since 2003's "X2: X-Men United" has this filmmaker tapped so effortlessly into his talent for comicbook gravitas, his ability to mine emotional resonance, pop poetry and (crucially) sly humor "

 

[Dillah810]

92% so far on RT

Amazing Spiderman 2 was like 88% on RT when it first dropped and we see how that went....

 

[kp404]

this is stupid why can't these stupid companies just allow marvel the rights to use their own chars in the same movies. Would love to see an Xmen vs Avengers type of movie. Magneto teaming up with Loki would be dope

it's called capitalism. Learn the game, friendo:stringerexplain:

 

[Poetical Poltergeist]

I have no interest in seeing this flick for some reason. I slept on first class too.

 

[61 Corpses]

“Right from the start, Days Of Future Past moves at a breakneck speed assuming that you already know the situation and can deal with it instantly changing. It’s a film for comic-book fans; those who regularly put up with with various, sometimes contradictory storylines of their favourite characters and who are used to parallel universes, alternate timelines and sudden history rewrites. It’s a film that serves as a prequel, a sequel and a bridge between the two. And, most of all, it serves as a giant “f*** you” to X-Men: The Last Stand.

 

[EnzoG]

read a few of the reviews last night and today too fukking excited for this movie next week