who owns what and how it all fits together

It would be interesting to know under what conditions some or all of these deals would end. Specifically, my understanding is that most licensing deals have a clause that if you don't make a sequel within X years, the rights revert.

The most recent example of rights about to revert that i can think would be the Wheel of Time show that aired at 1:30 in the morning,which was done aired as soon as the rights were to revert.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Hussar

Legend
Last thing I read was the judge tossed it back to Hasbro and Sweetpea to come up with some sort of resolution. Maybe it's still in arbitration.
 

delericho

Legend
Last thing I read was the judge tossed it back to Hasbro and Sweetpea to come up with some sort of resolution. Maybe it's still in arbitration.

The most recent update I could find was this, from September. It appears that the trial ended, and there was a judgement forthcoming... but the judge has recommended that the parties involved come to some sort of a deal to avert that. Because, of course, if there's a deal instead of a ruling then it doesn't set any precedent going forward, while a ruling one way or another may have an impact on other licensing issues elsewhere (as discussed up-thread).
 

Nellisir

Hero
That's true Del. but, I didn't realize that Spider-Man was such a cash cow. I mean, sheesh, even with one more movie, I wouldn't have those that it did that well.

I can see why Sony has no intention of letting it go.

The first two Spider-Man movies were massive. X-Men came out in 2000, Spider-Man in 2002. There just wasn't any other competition. Those two really kickstarted the whole superhero movie genre.

Plus, Spider-Man 1 & 2 were really, really good movies.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
The most recent update I could find was this, from September. It appears that the trial ended, and there was a judgement forthcoming... but the judge has recommended that the parties involved come to some sort of a deal to avert that. Because, of course, if there's a deal instead of a ruling then it doesn't set any precedent going forward, while a ruling one way or another may have an impact on other licensing issues elsewhere (as discussed up-thread).

And, if I recall correctly, the judge intimated that if she were to make a ruling, somebody, and perhaps everybody, concerned would not be happy with the results.
 

sabrinathecat

Explorer
The first two Spider-Man movies were massive. X-Men came out in 2000, Spider-Man in 2002. There just wasn't any other competition. Those two really kickstarted the whole superhero movie genre.

Plus, Spider-Man 1 & 2 were really, really good movies.
What about Blade--that came out of no-where and broke the Superhero movies open again.
 

Nellisir

Hero
What about Blade--that came out of no-where and broke the Superhero movies open again.

Blade is a comic-book movie and a vampire movie, but not a superhero movie. That's my take on it. Blade wasn't revolutionary in the way Spider-Man was. Hell, my mom wanted to go see Spider-Man. (Then again, my mom apparently watches Walking Dead, so WTF do I know?)
 

sabrinathecat

Explorer
Blade is a comic-book movie and a vampire movie, but not a superhero movie. That's my take on it. Blade wasn't revolutionary in the way Spider-Man was. Hell, my mom wanted to go see Spider-Man. (Then again, my mom apparently watches Walking Dead, so WTF do I know?)
But Blade is a comic-book super-human character, and usually a hero. He doesn't have the 4-color costume of classic golden-age or what-not, but he is pretty much a super hero. He even had his own TV show, which mentioned (in passing) a number of other Marvel Characters, including Moon Knight.
While the movies were obviously Vampire themed (perhaps too much so), they were also pretty amazing for the time (well, the first one was).
It isn't the movie's fault that almost all the vampire movies that followed copied it.
 

Remove ads

Top