"Amazing Spider-Man 2" Webs Up a $92 Million Opening Weekend

[Kalen O.]

Seriously, if you WANT to see Fantastic Four, X-Men or Spider-man movies, wishing for Marvel to get the rights back is just incredibly counterproductive. Fox and Sony HAVE to keep producing those movies on a regular schedule, indefinitely, in order to hang on to the rights. Meaning that even if you don't like the current movies they produce, eventually they have to reboot or recast or go with new directors/writers so the odds of eventually seeing a version of the characters you like is actually in your favor. Marvel gets the rights back, they already have 12 years worth of movies planned at two films a year, so where exactly do you think they'll be fitting in additional films for three new franchises in, with any regularity?

And if Marvel gets the rights back, they have ZERO obligations to produce films with those characters with any kind of regularity, meaning a) there's no urgency to making new films, and with their project slate already full to the brim with their own proven franchises, they might as well let them sit for a good while to separate them from previous versions in audiences' minds by the time they do their own reboot. And b) when they do make new films with those characters, if for whatever reason they don't perform well, there is zero incentive for them to keep trying and rebooting and rebranding til they get it right, when instead they can just focus on different properties for another decade or so.

Totally get it if you hate every movie that Fox and Sony has produced to date, for whatever reason. But the best possible thing for the characters is not going back to an already crowded Marvel Studios, but just to wait til they cycle around to a new creative team that has a vision for the characters more in mind with what you want to see, and keep on repeating that indefinitely.

People tend to forget that the modern era of superhero movies is only about 15 years old....more like ten years old if you look at when they really started appearing in abundance. That's not that long. And in that time, we've already had two versions of Spider-man, Raimi and Webb's....and most people at least liked one version of those. We've had Singer tackle Superman, and Snyder, each with two very different takes. And although Schumacher's Batman followed Burton's Batman, however badly he trashed that franchise we saw it revitalized barely a decade later with Nolan's, and so on and so on. Point being, the more possible versions we get of these characters, the more chances for EVERYONE to get a version they actually like. But hey, if you'd prefer to keep as many properties in one studios' hands as possible, despite the fact that there is a very set and finite limit on how many movies one studio can actually produce in a year or ten years or twenty years.....sure, why not. Sitting in a vault is how every comicbook fan likes his characters, isn't it? Adds value or something, I hear.

[Legato]

Seriously, if you WANT to see Fantastic Four, X-Men or Spider-man movies, wishing for Marvel to get the rights back is just incredibly counterproductive. Fox and Sony HAVE to keep producing those movies on a regular schedule, indefinitely, in order to hang on to the rights. Meaning that even if you don't like the current movies they produce, eventually they have to reboot or recast or go with new directors/writers so the odds of eventually seeing a version of the characters you like is actually in your favor. Marvel gets the rights back, they already have 12 years worth of movies planned at two films a year, so where exactly do you think they'll be fitting in additional films for three new franchises in, with any regularity?

And if Marvel gets the rights back, they have ZERO obligations to produce films with those characters with any kind of regularity, meaning a) there's no urgency to making new films, and with their project slate already full to the brim with their own proven franchises, they might as well let them sit for a good while to separate them from previous versions in audiences' minds by the time they do their own reboot. And b) when they do make new films with those characters, if for whatever reason they don't perform well, there is zero incentive for them to keep trying and rebooting and rebranding til they get it right, when instead they can just focus on different properties for another decade or so.

Totally get it if you hate every movie that Fox and Sony has produced to date, for whatever reason. But the best possible thing for the characters is not going back to an already crowded Marvel Studios, but just to wait til they cycle around to a new creative team that has a vision for the characters more in mind with what you want to see, and keep on repeating that indefinitely.

People tend to forget that the modern era of superhero movies is only about 15 years old....more like ten years old if you look at when they really started appearing in abundance. That's not that long. And in that time, we've already had two versions of Spider-man, Raimi and Webb's....and most people at least liked one version of those. We've had Singer tackle Superman, and Snyder, each with two very different takes. And although Schumacher's Batman followed Burton's Batman, however badly he trashed that franchise we saw it revitalized barely a decade later with Nolan's, and so on and so on. Point being, the more possible versions we get of these characters, the more chances for EVERYONE to get a version they actually like. But hey, if you'd prefer to keep as many properties in one studios' hands as possible, despite the fact that there is a very set and finite limit on how many movies one studio can actually produce in a year or ten years or twenty years.....sure, why not. Sitting in a vault is how every comicbook fan likes his characters, isn't it? Adds value or something, I hear.

Someone who sees it logically. Marvel is perfectly fine as they are now and they don't need Spider-Man or X-Men to improve. All they have to do is continue to make good movies. Besides I like the fact that without X-Men and Spider-Man different other Marvel characters are getting a chance to shine at the big screen.

[UnRiel]

I think after seeing both the biggest mistake is in changing the origin to involve Peter’s father as a scientist and trying to tie Norman, Harry ad Peter into that common origin.

Moreover, the Rhino is just plain stupid. Electro being this loner instead of a criminal hurt that character.

Oh Sony, maybe you tried to hard.

Garfield is a good Spider-Man, Emma Watson plays Gwen off Peter very nicely, but the back story gets in the way and interrupts the enjoyable Spider-Man action.

[PretenderNX01]

Someone who sees it logically. Marvel is perfectly fine as they are now and they don't need Spider-Man or X-Men to improve. All they have to do is continue to make good movies. Besides I like the fact that without X-Men and Spider-Man different other Marvel characters are getting a chance to shine at the big screen.

Agreed, the MCU isn't hurting for stories. Really, one could argue not having to be told "the fans want a Marvel Spider-Man now!" means they have more free time to develop every other property into a film. If one studio had to deal with Avengers, Spider-Man, X-Men and the Fantastic Four then that's all that would probably be seen from it. Sort of like the comics. Oh, gods and they'd probably do crossovers.

[thejka]

Amazing Spider-Man 2 did beat out the first Spider-Man 2's 1st weekend box office take. Sure ticket prices are different and such, but that's something.

Spider-Man being in the MCU would in no way inherently make Spider-Man films better. If anything, they might mess with the core Spider-Man struggle. Spider-Man: Hero or Menace makes less sense as a headline if Spider-Man is one of Earth's Mightiest Heroes. It only works now in the comics because Spider-Man has grown up into a twenty something hero, no longer the teen superhero role he once occupied.

It's better that some of Marvel properties remain at these various other studios. If the X-Men existed in the MCU, the question would be why are Tony Stark and Captain America doing nothing to help out mutants (I guess you could springboard an Uncanny Avengers film off that). But the X-Men as a priority requires a mutant history for the mutant struggle, so you would have to reboot the Marvel Universe in order to get that right. You could, however, just put the Fantastic Four in whenever.

But if Spider-Man and X-Men were being made at Marvel Studios, then there would be no room for films like Guardians of the Galaxy or Ant-Man due to the amount of films a studio could release.

[Ozymandas]

Seriously, if you WANT to see Fantastic Four, X-Men or Spider-man movies, wishing for Marvel to get the rights back is just incredibly counterproductive. Fox and Sony HAVE to keep producing those movies on a regular schedule, indefinitely, in order to hang on to the rights. Meaning that even if you don't like the current movies they produce, eventually they have to reboot or recast or go with new directors/writers so the odds of eventually seeing a version of the characters you like is actually in your favor. Marvel gets the rights back, they already have 12 years worth of movies planned at two films a year, so where exactly do you think they'll be fitting in additional films for three new franchises in, with any regularity?

Very good point! I totally agree. But just for the sake of argument: putting aside the question of how few Spidey or FF or X-Men movies we'd be getting without the other studio's obligations as they are, I do think Marvel would crank out some good ones sooner rather than later. But mostly it's wanting to see total MU integration that has me jonesing for Marvel to get some rights back. Ah well, at least they can potentially one day put MAX Thor: Viking together with what they've got. Now that's something I'd love to see.
________________________________________

Question for someone who knows this stuff: how exactly do Marvel's rights agreements with Sony & Fox work? I understand the studios are obligated to make movies every x number of years or they lose the rights, but shouldn't those rights only apply to the characters as they were a the time that the contracts were created? I haven't done any research, but I'm thinking the Ultimate Electro & Rhino versions came AFTER the contract was made. And what about a brand new character like Mr. Negative (created after the drawing of the contract, I think)? Not that he's exceptionally worthwhile, but could Sony use him if they wanted to? If so, wouldn't it behoove Marvel to create new characters in books with fewer restrictions, then move them over to Spidey, X-Men & FF afterwards?

[RobinFan4880]

Question for someone who knows this stuff: how exactly do Marvel's rights agreements with Sony & Fox work? I understand the studios are obligated to make movies every x number of years or they lose the rights, but shouldn't those rights only apply to the characters as they were a the time that the contracts were created? I haven't done any research, but I'm thinking the Ultimate Electro & Rhino versions came AFTER the contract was made. And what about a brand new character like Mr. Negative (created after the drawing of the contract, I think)? Not that he's exceptionally worthwhile, but could Sony use him if they wanted to? If so, wouldn't it behoove Marvel to create new characters in books with fewer restrictions, then move them over to Spidey, X-Men & FF afterwards?

As I understand it, they took a snapshot of the Marvel Universe as it existed when the contracts were signed. Any character associated with X-Men were given to Fox and any character associated with Spider-Man were given to Sony. Characters that blurred the lines (like Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver (and presumably Beast)*) were allowed to be jointly held by both Marvel and the licensing company. Sony controls Electro and can do with the character what ever they want, up to and including having their movie version be inspired by the Ultimate Universe version of the character. Marvel/Disney is not going to bother wagging their finger at that (especially since it is in Disney/Marvel's best interest to see the movies be successful since they get a cut of the earnings). I do not believe the licensing companies will have the rights to any new characters created after the contracts were signed. If this were not the case and new creations would go to the licensing companies, then Disney/Marvel would never create a new character in X-Men/FF/Spidey comics as it would be to Marvel/Disney's own detriment for monetizing the new characters.

*It will be interesting to see how many villains exist in that blurred line area given how many of the Fantastic Four's villains have spilled over into the pages of the Avengers.

[Kalen O.]

As I understand it, they took a snapshot of the Marvel Universe as it existed when the contracts were signed. Any character associated with X-Men were given to Fox and any character associated with Spider-Man were given to Sony. Characters that blurred the lines (like Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver (and presumably Beast)*) were allowed to be jointly held by both Marvel and the licensing company. Sony controls Electro and can do with the character what ever they want, up to and including having their movie version be inspired by the Ultimate Universe version of the character. Marvel/Disney is not going to bother wagging their finger at that (especially since it is in Disney/Marvel's best interest to see the movies be successful since they get a cut of the earnings). I do not believe the licensing companies will have the rights to any new characters created after the contracts were signed. If this were not the case and new creations would go to the licensing companies, then Disney/Marvel would never create a new character in X-Men/FF/Spidey comics as it would be to Marvel/Disney's own detriment for monetizing the new characters.

*It will be interesting to see how many villains exist in that blurred line area given how many of the Fantastic Four's villains have spilled over into the pages of the Avengers.

Except that its not that cut and dried because multiple characters created after the original licensing agreements have been featured in X-Men movies, such as the character Ink, who was just featured in the latest clip for Days of Future Past.

[RobinFan4880]

Except that its not that cut and dried because multiple characters created after the original licensing agreements have been featured in X-Men movies, such as the character Ink, who was just featured in the latest clip for Days of Future Past.

Perhaps Marvel is allowing Fox to use the character because they have no plans for him?

[Kalen O.]

Perhaps Marvel is allowing Fox to use the character because they have no plans for him?

There are too many characters the films have used that were created after the original agreements for them to be going to Marvel and asking for permission on a case by case basis. More likely which characters can be used by which studio is determined by brand recognition. In other words, if a character is primarily attributed to the X-Men comic franchise, FOX gets them. If they're primarily known as a Spider-man character, Sony gets them. Hence why the Kingpin was in Daredevil despite being initially a Spider-man villain, he's more closely tied to Daredevil overall. Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver can be equally attributed to either the X-Men franchise or the Avengers, hence their shared status, and so on.

Angel Salvatore, Azazel and Darwin were all in First Class, all of them created after the first X-Men film. Dr. Kavito Rao was in X3 despite not even being a mutant character. Other bit characters in X3 were named Kid Omega and Quill, also new X-Men characters. And like I said, Ink is in the new movie. Its highly unlikely Fox goes and asks Marvel permission for each minor character or two second cameo of a mutant created in the past fifteen years. My guess is if they were created as X-characters and have never really stepped outside that box in the comics, they're fair game for Fox and if Marvel disagrees about a particular one, THEY go to Fox with the complaint.

[RobinFan4880]

There are too many characters the films have used that were created after the original agreements for them to be going to Marvel and asking for permission on a case by case basis. More likely which characters can be used by which studio is determined by brand recognition. In other words, if a character is primarily attributed to the X-Men comic franchise, FOX gets them. If they're primarily known as a Spider-man character, Sony gets them. Hence why the Kingpin was in Daredevil despite being initially a Spider-man villain, he's more closely tied to Daredevil overall. Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver can be equally attributed to either the X-Men franchise or the Avengers, hence their shared status, and so on.

Angel Salvatore, Azazel and Darwin were all in First Class, all of them created after the first X-Men film. Dr. Kavito Rao was in X3 despite not even being a mutant character. Other bit characters in X3 were named Kid Omega and Quill, also new X-Men characters. And like I said, Ink is in the new movie. Its highly unlikely Fox goes and asks Marvel permission for each minor character or two second cameo of a mutant created in the past fifteen years. My guess is if they were created as X-characters and have never really stepped outside that box in the comics, they're fair game for Fox and if Marvel disagrees about a particular one, THEY go to Fox with the complaint.

A very logical argument indeed.

However, I do think such an arrangement gives quite bit of power to Marvel as it could take a less popular character from X/Spidey stock and spend a few years promoting him/her as a member of the avengers (or just independent in general) and thus be able to claim use of the character for their own movie/TV properties.

[Kalen O.]

A very logical argument indeed.

However, I do think such an arrangement gives quite bit of power to Marvel as it could take a less popular character from X/Spidey stock and spend a few years promoting him/her as a member of the avengers (or just independent in general) and thus be able to claim use of the character for their own movie/TV properties.

Which makes it likely that the time of contract signing is relevant for all previously existing characters, in terms of what property they were most associated with, to avoid Marvel doing precisely that. Otherwise, Wolverine and Spider-man would now be fair game having both moved to the Avengers in the comics not long after.

[kalorama]

Perhaps Marvel is allowing Fox to use the character because they have no plans for him?

Which would essentially amount to Marvel doing Fox a potentially expensive dollar favor. That's not happening.