Do people think Marvel would make better X-Men movies then Fox?

[Bl00dwerK]

It's six of one, half-dozen of the other: Marvel/Disney's version would be more comic-accurate, but possibly "watered down". FOX lets Wolverine smoke, and say "****", but he can't wear a costume. Pick your poison...

[Franchise408]

It's six of one, half-dozen of the other: Marvel/Disney's version would be more comic-accurate, but possibly "watered down". FOX lets Wolverine smoke, and say "****", but he can't wear a costume. Pick your poison...

Well the costume is the least important of all of that, so my choice is easy.

#nevermarvel

[ChildOfTheAtom]

It's hilarious people think the actual creator's of X-Men will take their most popular team property and just **** on it worst than 20th Century FoX did with X3/Origins/Apocalypse. The Holy Trinity of ****

[ChildOfTheAtom]

Marvel/Disney's version would be more comic-accurate, but possibly "watered down". FOX lets Wolverine smoke, and say "****", but he can't wear a costume. Pick your poison...

Just say futzer

[Confuzzled]

It's hilarious people think the actual creator's of X-Men will take their most popular team property and just **** on it worst than 20th Century FoX did with X3/Origins/Apocalypse. The Holy Trinity of ****

[ChildOfTheAtom]

Daredevil
Elektra
Kingpin
Punisher

All improved since leaving FoX/Lions gate

X-Men under Marvel would be epic... FoX doesn't understand these characters and they don't plan ahead in any of the movies

[Confuzzled]

Daredevil
Elektra
Kingpin
Punisher

All improved since leaving FoX/Lions gate

X-Men under Marvel would be epic...

You want mutants to be relegated to Netflix and never be referenced by the cinematic Avenger movies? I mean, I'm not being sarcastic. If that's all you want then fine... I can see it working (though we wouldn't be getting the variety that Fox has planned).

But if you want to see cinematic X-Men done right... uh, dunno how the required tone will mesh with quippy and lite MCU.

[Siddon]

It's hilarious people think the actual creator's of X-Men will take their most popular team property and just **** on it worst than 20th Century FoX did with X3/Origins/Apocalypse. The Holy Trinity of ****

X-men
X2
X-men the Last Stand
Wolverine Origins
X-men First Class
The Wolverine
X-men Days of the Future Past
Deadpool
X-men Apocalypse

now let's look at DC/Warner Brothers

Superman Returns
The Dark Knight
Watchmen
The Losers
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Dark Knight Rises
Man of Steel
Batman V Superman

Non X-men Non Disney

Elektra
Fantastic Four
Ghost Rider
Spider-man 3
Fantastic Four:Rise of the Silver Surfer
Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance
Amazing Spiderman
Amazing Spiderman 2
Fantastic Four

The X-men films might not be as good as Marvel/Disney but they are clearly #2 and ahead of WB/DC. I don't want one company to have a monopoly on these characters, I want to get a Deadpool or a First Class that feels different.

[Selina]

It's hilarious people think the actual creator's of X-Men will take their most popular team property and just **** on it worst than 20th Century FoX did with X3/Origins/Apocalypse. The Holy Trinity of ****

correction, its disney marvel studios who will **** on it. marvel studios and marvel comics are different medium just like their animation and marvel animation is just awful and way too childish and very inferior to DC animation because disney are too worried about what kids will think as seen in the article.

Fox has done better than MCU with films like X2, First Class and DOFP. MCU Disney will just water down x-men. a perfect example is DOFP and Civil War.

DOFP was more faithful to the heart and substance of the comics than the Civil War movie and not to mention the much better movie.

The Civil War move which was suppose to be quite dark and dramatic like the comics became light hearted fun with tons of humours and no sense of present danger or high stakes.

Fox did a better job with the DOFP and God Loves, Man Kills which X2 was based off from in terms of been faithful to the source material than Disney did with Civil War, which was basically an Avengers movie and no X-Men film should be like an Avengers movie.

[dragonmp93]

It's hilarious people think the actual creator's of X-Men will take their most popular team property and just **** on it worst than 20th Century FoX did with X3/Origins/Apocalypse. The Holy Trinity of ****

Well, have you read the comics these days ?. So much for the creators of the X-men.

[AdamFTF]

So, I'm sitting in the theater with my folks waiting through the credits of X-Men: Apocalypse and my dad leans over and asks when they'll get around to doing an "Avengers meets X-Men" movie. I tell him they can't and he says "Of course they can. If there's money in it, they can make it happen." I then explain the whole licensing thing to him, which basically boils down to "It's not about whether there's money in it, but who gets to keep the money". But it gets me thinking about the whole thing and why people might want to see Marvel Films make X-Men movies or at least a co-production between Fox and Disney. For one, I think there are a lot of people who want to see that team-up/match-up happen. They want to see the heroes they've seen on the big screen meet each other. They also want to see lauded heroes like the Avengers meet a team that regularly gets treated like crap by the public (for those who think it doesn't make any sense for the X-Men to be hated and the Avengers to be loved, remember that X-Men embraces a metaphor for bigotry and bigotry is never rational). Even my dad, who hasn't read a superhero comic book since he was 12 years old wants to see it. The other thing stems from something that critic/comedian Doug Walker said on the web show Awesome Comics. He said that superhero movies have come so far that it seems ridiculous to keep operating in that universe they created. And I understand that. When the first X-Men movie came out, superheroes were very out-of-vogue. Marvel's official line was "The X-Men aren't superheroes, they're mutant rights activists" which is why they hired Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely to revamp everything and put everyone in biker outfits (not my cup of tea. Thank goodness for Claremont and X-Treme X-Men). But now, people are totally down with the superhero thing. People want to see it rebooted so that the X-Men can operate in a universe that embraces some of the more out-there elements. Who's shown a capability for doing big superhero-y superheroes? Marvel Films and Disney.

Personally, I'm on the fence. I would love to see the team-up if it's actually a team-up rather than an AvsX movie. I also would love to see some of the more fantastical stuff like the Shi'ar and the Ruby of Cyttorak. However, the stuff I miss most from the X-Men I read when I was younger is the grand soap opera stuff, which will be lost no matter who makes the movies. There's just no time for it in feature-length films. Also, I'm hesitant to see Marvel/Disney make X-Men movies because it seems like Fox's X-Men movies are the only ones out there still interested in adapting classic stories. Marvel Films, for the most part, is more interested in newer material. They adapted Extremis and Winter Soldier and Civil War, etc. Fox is doing stuff like "Days of Future Past" and some Apocalypse stuff. As someone who's becoming a bit more retro everyday, I'd rather see the older stuff. Just my two cents.

[Carabas]

You want mutants to be relegated to Netflix and never be referenced by the cinematic Avenger movies? I mean, I'm not being sarcastic. If that's all you want then fine... I can see it working (though we wouldn't be getting the variety that Fox has planned).

To be perfectly realistic, if Marvel got full control of the X-Men tomorrow, it's likely they'll put them in their own universe. They work best that way, and they don't really fit into the MCU anyway. And I doubt Marvel is willing to rock that boat just to make some X-Men fans happy.

[Carabas]

So, I'm sitting in the theater with my folks waiting through the credits of X-Men: Apocalypse and my dad leans over and asks when they'll get around to doing an "Avengers meets X-Men" movie. I tell him they can't and he says "Of course they can. If there's money in it, they can make it happen." I then explain the whole licensing thing to him, which basically boils down to "It's not about whether there's money in it, but who gets to keep the money". But it gets me thinking about the whole thing and why people might want to see Marvel Films make X-Men movies or at least a co-production between Fox and Disney. For one, I think there are a lot of people who want to see that team-up/match-up happen. They want to see the heroes they've seen on the big screen meet each other. They also want to see lauded heroes like the Avengers meet a team that regularly gets treated like crap by the public (for those who think it doesn't make any sense for the X-Men to be hated and the Avengers to be loved, remember that X-Men embraces a metaphor for bigotry and bigotry is never rational). Even my dad, who hasn't read a superhero comic book since he was 12 years old wants to see it. The other thing stems from something that critic/comedian Doug Walker said on the web show Awesome Comics. He said that superhero movies have come so far that it seems ridiculous to keep operating in that universe they created. And I understand that. When the first X-Men movie came out, superheroes were very out-of-vogue. Marvel's official line was "The X-Men aren't superheroes, they're mutant rights activists" which is why they hired Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely to revamp everything and put everyone in biker outfits (not my cup of tea. Thank goodness for Claremont and X-Treme X-Men). But now, people are totally down with the superhero thing. People want to see it rebooted so that the X-Men can operate in a universe that embraces some of the more out-there elements. Who's shown a capability for doing big superhero-y superheroes? Marvel Films and Disney.

"What people want to see" will get overruled by "what is legally possible" each and every time.

At this point Guardians Of The Galaxy meets Star Wars is more likely.

An X-Men/Avengers crossover movie is as likely as a Batman/Captain America movie.

And how much people would like to see this is frankly not a factor in this.

Personally, I'm on the fence. I would love to see the team-up if it's actually a team-up rather than an AvsX movie. I also would love to see some of the more fantastical stuff like the Shi'ar and the Ruby of Cyttorak. However, the stuff I miss most from the X-Men I read when I was younger is the grand soap opera stuff, which will be lost no matter who makes the movies. There's just no time for it in feature-length films. Also, I'm hesitant to see Marvel/Disney make X-Men movies because it seems like Fox's X-Men movies are the only ones out there still interested in adapting classic stories. Marvel Films, for the most part, is more interested in newer material. They adapted Extremis and Winter Soldier and Civil War, etc. Fox is doing stuff like "Days of Future Past" and some Apocalypse stuff. As someone who's becoming a bit more retro everyday, I'd rather see the older stuff. Just my two cents.

Do the X-Men even have that much useable modern stories that aren't hopelesly tangled up with properties Fox doesn't hav the righst to?

[AdamFTF]

"What people want to see" will get overruled by "what is legally possible" each and every time.

At this point Guardians Of The Galaxy meets Star Wars is more likely.

An X-Men/Avengers crossover movie is as likely as a Batman/Captain America movie.

And how much people would like to see this is frankly not a factor in this.

You're not wrong. I was just expressing why it seemed people wanted Marvel Films to get the rights back. And like I said, all the legal stuff boils down to money. Fox has a license to those characters. Even if they were to negotiate a co-production deal for an Avengers vs X-Men movie, what are the odds that the resulting film would make more money than your average blockbuster. Then they'd have to split that money. One of the studios would have to be in a position to make more money than it normally would in order for the deal to even go forward.

Do the X-Men even have that much useable modern stories that aren't hopelesly tangled up with properties Fox doesn't hav the righst to?

It depends on how recent you want to go.

I know this may seem like a whole lot of time to some people (16 years), but I kind of consider everything after 2000 to be "modern". I may be using a combination of cultural and personal events to create these markers (both the first X-Men movie and my graduation from high school were in 2000). Though, I imagine everyone has their own time markers they adhere to. But I imagine we'd see a lot more Morrison stuff with characters like Cassandra Nova and John Sublime (like I said, not my cup of tea. I never warmed to Morrison's writing). They might also try to readapt some Whedon stuff like they attempted to do with The Last Stand. We certainly wouldn't be getting stuff like "Days of Future Past", though.

[Carabas]

You're not wrong. I was just expressing why it seemed people wanted Marvel Films to get the rights back.

I think it's fairer to say that people want Marvel and Fox to grow up and work out an arrangement.

And like I said, all the legal stuff boils down to money.

I this case, I think a lot of it boils down to ego and bad blood. And I'll point to Sony and Spider-Man as evidence.

Fox has a license to those characters. Even if they were to negotiate a co-production deal for an Avengers vs X-Men movie, what are the odds that the resulting film would make more money than your average blockbuster. Then they'd have to split that money. One of the studios would have to be in a position to make more money than it normally would in order for the deal to even go forward.

There are other consideration.
Time, for one. Marvel Studios has a very busy schedule, movie-wise.

And there is the question o it is actually a good idea, to put the X-Men into the MCU, longterm. Which I really don't think it is.
As I said, I am certain that even if trough some manner got back full control of the X-Men tomorrow, they probably would not be adding them to the MCU.

It depends on how recent you want to go.

I know this may seem like a whole lot of time to some people (16 years), but I kind of consider everything after 2000 to be "modern". I may be using a combination of cultural and personal events to create these markers (both the first X-Men movie and my graduation from high school were in 2000). Though, I imagine everyone has their own time markers they adhere to. But I imagine we'd see a lot more Morrison stuff with characters like Cassandra Nova and John Sublime (like I said, not my cup of tea. I never warmed to Morrison's writing). They might also try to readapt some Whedon stuff like they attempted to do with The Last Stand. We certainly wouldn't be getting stuff like "Days of Future Past", though.

16 year ago is not what I would call recent...
Anyway, they can't adapt the Morrison run into the MCU because it simply does not work without Mutants having a long history.

And for what it's worth, Marvel Studios seem to adapt more old comics (60's-80') than new ones.
You just have to look at the actual stories and not at the title.
Winter Soldier was in no way or shape an adaption of the Ed Brubaker story of the same name. The stories are completely different. The movie is more an adaption of Minority Report.
Age Of Ultron had no plot elements in common with the comic of the same name.
Avengers adapts (loosely) the first Avengers story from 1963, where the team first comes together to stop a vengeful Loki.
The first Iron Man film takes its cues from the 60's origin.
Ant-Man is adapted from Marvel Premiere Vol 1 #47 from 1979.
Captain America: Civil War had almost nothing in common with Mark Millar's story.

The MCU films mostly like to do their own thing, or adapt ancient stories, occasionally putting a more recent name on it.