who owns what and how it all fits together

[trappedslider]

Or in other words the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

A little history to bring folks update :

Back during the 90s and a bit before and bit after Marvel Entertainment sold off movie rights left and right to their Characters in order to stay a float. In 97, Marvel Studios was actively pursuing various film productions based on Marvel characters, including the eventual films X-Men (2000), Daredevil(2003) and Fantastic Four (2005).

The first movie from the licensing giving out was Blade in 98,after that the rights to spider-man and related characters were picked up by Sony. In 2000 X-men was made.

Skipping a head to 05, we see the return of the following rights to Marvel : Black Panther,Iron Man,Thor and Black Widow.

After being bought up by Disney, the following rights were reacquired : Blade,Daredevil and related characters,ghost rider,punisher.

Back In February both Sony and Marvel reached an agreement about the Spider-man rights which will let spidy appear in the MCU. However, Sony Pictures will continue to finance, distribute, own and have final creative control of the Spider-Man films. Marvel Studios will also explore opportunities to integrate other characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe into future Spider-Man films.

So currently the only properties that Marvel/Disney do not have access to are : the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchise of characters at 20th Century Fox. And Namor, the reason behind Namor is due to older agreements that still need to be worked on before any movement can be done.

Now what the above means is that nowhere in the MCU are the words Mutant used to refer to abilities such as Quicksliver and The Scarlet Witch, they are instead branded as Miracle or Gifted. Also their parentage as being Magneto's children wont be referenced in Avengers 2.

And here's a handy chart that is up to date

 

[sabrinathecat]

When did anyone use Namor? Maybe in a single Fantastic Four cartoon?

 

[Kramodlog]

Hulk is in part owned by Universal and thus why no new Hulk film is in the works. http://io9.com/oh-so-thats-why-marvel-hasnt-made-any-more-hulk-movies-1697783814

 

[Hussar]

I think far more interesting is that little graphic in the bottom right of the infographic - the Top 5 Franchises. Good grief, it looks like Spiderman almost out grossed Iron Man and Avengers combined. Yikes.

 

[Kramodlog]

I think far more interesting is that little graphic in the bottom right of the infographic - the Top 5 Franchises. Good grief, it looks like Spiderman almost out grossed Iron Man and Avengers combined. Yikes.

You'll freak out even more when you see the money Spidey generates from licensed products. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/superhero-earns-13-billion-a-748281

I would guess the biggest hurdle for DC is aiming for the adults demographics when it comes to making their movies.

 

[delericho]

I think far more interesting is that little graphic in the bottom right of the infographic - the Top 5 Franchises. Good grief, it looks like Spiderman almost out grossed Iron Man and Avengers combined. Yikes.

But isn't Spider-Man represented by 5 films (the original trilogy plus the two post-reboot), Iron Man by 3, and the Avengers by only 1 at the moment? In which case, I'd expect it to look rather different in just a few weeks...

 

[Hussar]

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.

 

[delericho]

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.

In particular, though, I wonder about how the "Dungeons & Dragons" suit might affect things. If the ruling is in fact that a reboot isn't a sequel, might that mean that both Hulk and Fantastic Four might revert - since "Incredible Hulk" wasn't a sequel to "Hulk", and there's been no new film in many years; and since the new FF film is likewise a reboot rather than a sequel?

(X-Men, of course, would remain as-is, since they keep making movies, and presumably Spidey would be protected by the recent deal between Sony and Marvel.)

 

[Hussar]

I didn't thing "reboot" was the issue though. I thought it was because Sweatpea produced a "movie" that was essentially a made for TV program, and not a feature film, which is what the licensing contract specified. After all, the D&D movies aren't actually tied to each other, so, there's real rebooting going on.

 

[delericho]

I didn't thing "reboot" was the issue though. I thought it was because Sweatpea produced a "movie" that was essentially a made for TV program, and not a feature film, which is what the licensing contract specified. After all, the D&D movies aren't actually tied to each other, so, there's real rebooting going on.

There's something in there to do with the definition of sequel. D&D2 is a sequel to D&D1 by virtue of the continuing character of Damodar (blue lipstick guy). D&D3 doesn't have any recurring characters or (I think) locations. Hence at least one of the arguments is that it isn't a sequel, and as such doesn't fulfill that part of the contract.

Or something. As with all these things, the devil is in the details.