Sales figures for March

[JKtheMac]

You're right in that no one outside of corporate staff or those on a need to know basis has any solid information of the nature of their deal. The only thing we can surmise from the past is that Fox had a form of use it or lose it (my term, not a legal one!) I think the evidence is pretty clear when things seemed to really go sour when Fox put the Fantastic Four into production in 2014. Rise of the Silver Surfer was released in 2007. Some reports I've read over the years say that Fox could keep the rights to the Fantastic Four as long as they put something in production every 7 years. Sometimes I've read 8 years. I guess it depends on whether the agreement goes by when production dates or release dates. But since Ike Perlmutter allegedly went on his rampage in the fall of 2014, it would seem to indicate that Fox's decision to release another Fantastic Four movie to set the clock back to zero again is the likely trigger.

The rights have a strange history because they were originally bought by a European company called Constantin Films back in 1986 and at one point Chris Columbus was attached to the project. Columbus says even though his name appeared on the two films, he was actually fired but they kept his name on the credits. By the mid 1990s, there was still no Fantastic Four movie and then we got the rushed, never to be release Roger Corman movie in 1994 to keep the rights. So that leads one to believe that there was a cut off date in place or they would not have rushed something into production but not release it.

In this interview clip Chris Columbus says his ideas were rejected. Constantin Films then made the deal for Fox to produce the films. It's still a bit murky on how Fox ended up with it and Constantin Film is apparently no longer part of this purchase process. Fox provided the resources for the film production and the distribution. Or maybe Disney made some settlement with Constantin Film. There's been very little mention of them in this process so maybe the picture will become more clear when the deal goes through.

Indeed, but even these details are actually pretty vague when you examine what people actually have said about the rights. Everything is couched with ”as I understand it” or “at the time I was told this”.

My theory is that it’s a simple copyright issue and Disney’s lawyers advised Marvel that if they published a book during a specific window around the last movie, it could be construed as a tie-in product and help to extend any joint copyright arrangements, a little like producing toys that tie-in to the movie. Legal advice is often more cautious than actual case law. A worst case scenario if you will.

[skyvolt2000]

Indeed, but even these details are actually pretty vague when you examine what people actually have said about the rights. Everything is couched with ”as I understand it” or “at the time I was told this”.

My theory is that it’s a simple copyright issue and Disney’s lawyers advised Marvel that if they published a book during a specific window around the last movie, it could be construed as a tie-in product and help to extend any joint copyright arrangements, a little like producing toys that tie-in to the movie. Legal advice is often more cautious than actual case law. A worst case scenario if you will.

If that is the case there shouldn't have been ANYTHING X-Men.

I think the bottom line was something had to be made within X amount of time and released.

I want to say this has happen before with SOMEBODY before. I can't remember the film but it was made by someone else and after x amount of time-the film makers were free to go elsewhere to get it released.

It was some 80s horror movie.

[JKtheMac]

If that is the case there shouldn't have been ANYTHING X-Men.

I think the bottom line was something had to be made within X amount of time and released.

I want to say this has happen before with SOMEBODY before. I can't remember the film but it was made by someone else and after x amount of time-the film makers were free to go elsewhere to get it released.

It was some 80s horror movie.

And many of these things are governed by contract. However the IP shenanigans in the 90s were representative of Marvel being a sinking ship. The potential assets that were X-Men IP were moved into a separate company. The rights to print the comics remained with Marvel, but at that time nobody thought comics would survive. The comic shops were closing at an alarming rate. The bubble had burst. The direct market was doomed. That holding company remained separate from Marvel and ended up with Fox (who didn't even exist in the form they do now when the assets were divided). The F4 arrived via a different route. But exactly how is a little mysterious. It seems to be partly related to a contract, but the details remain vague.

Nearly everyone bases their understanding of Fox's rights on a single anecdote about the German F4 project and a couple of other anecdotal things surrounding the way the movie companies seem to be on a schedule. The rest is just a weight of articles and press building upon that idea. And the people involved in the actual projects are not reliable sources of legal info. They are not in the know.

If we were to be a fly on the wall in a meeting between Fox or Sony and Marvel we would probably note that a lot of the agenda is directed by a few people with briefcases and laptops, referring to company legislation.

[Iron Maiden]

And many of these things are governed by contract. However the IP shenanigans in the 90s were representative of Marvel being a sinking ship. The potential assets that were X-Men IP were moved into a separate company. The rights to print the comics remained with Marvel, but at that time nobody thought comics would survive. The comic shops were closing at an alarming rate. The bubble had burst. The direct market was doomed. That holding company remained separate from Marvel and ended up with Fox (who didn't even exist in the form they do now when the assets were divided). The F4 arrived via a different route. But exactly how is a little mysterious. It seems to be partly related to a contract, but the details remain vague.

Nearly everyone bases their understanding of Fox's rights on a single anecdote about the German F4 project and a couple of other anecdotal things surrounding the way the movie companies seem to be on a schedule. The rest is just a weight of articles and press building upon that idea. And the people involved in the actual projects are not reliable sources of legal info. They are not in the know.

If we were to be a fly on the wall in a meeting between Fox or Sony and Marvel we would probably note that a lot of the agenda is directed by a few people with briefcases and laptops, referring to company legislation.

I have a feeling the wording of the contracts perhaps weren't tightly written for Marvel's benefit. Their legal experts probably weren't very good at protecting Marvel's best interests IMO. For example, the one that Universal got for Sub-Mariner has kept him locked up over there for decades. I guess getting the money was more important since they were in dire straits financially.

[Valamist]

I'm pissed that people aren't giving such a great book a chance.

Agreed. I'm not much of a F4 fan, but its such a good book. It just goes to show that quality is not always what pushes sales.

She-Hulk at 147 with 13,302. Such a shame. Maybe her next title will do better. :/

One can only hope so. Perhaps next time they will come to the conclusion that inverting almost everything us fans love about the character is not the best way to go...

[FreshGuy]

I'm glad for the success of Weapon H, it is a great book!