James Gunn reveals 2 more characters owned by FOX

JAMES GUNN Says KANG And SHI'AR Film Rights Controlled By Fox

In a Facebook comment, responding to a fan's question about possible characters for Guardians of the Galaxy 2, director James Gunn has claimed that the film rights for the Shi'Ar and Kang are both controlled by 20th Century Fox, saying "Shi'ar and Kang are both owned by Fox. All decisions about who is in GotG2 were made a long time ago."

Fox controlling the Shi'Ar comes as no surprise, given the alien race's deep ties to the X-Men franchise. But Kang being controlled by Fox is a bit more surprising, given that he has traditionally been an Avengers villain. However, the key may lie in his origins, as the character first appeared as Rama-Tut in Fantastic Four a full year before appearing in Avengers as Kang. Additionally, the character's alter ego, Nathaniel Richards, is a descendent of Reed Richards of the FF.

Thoughts on this? The shi'ar isn't a huge hit for me but the fact they can't use Kang at all destroys my soul :(

Shi'ar makes sense, Kang is a bit of a surprise though he is a FF villain.

Kinda wanted Kang in an Avengers movie...

:(

It would make perfect sense since FF belongs to Fox as well.

Actually Shiar is owned by X-Men, at least in Phoenix Saga.

Kinda angry that they hoarded it and never bothered to use them (the Superskrull only happened to Human Torch in Rise of the Silver Surfer movie).

I mean they even had to make Ronan a villain despite him being more like tough authority figure rather than a terrorist (though he did a fair share of coup and betrayals in Kree-Skrull war). So how are they going to make Kree-Skrull War, Annihilators, United Front, and Black Vortex movie since he's dead.

Guess we're stuck with Ultimate Chitauris (moving into 616 verse via Nova), Kree, The grey dudes from Planet Hulk, and possibly Rigellians.

There goes a cool emperor with a mohawk.

@poeticwarrior: By the time they sold the rights to fox, he had turned more into an avengers villain.

I don't want to see Kang in Avengers. Not at least until I see what they do with Thanos. If I see a wise cracking Thanos, my faith in the MCU will be completely lost.

No please, Kang is one of my favorite villains and I want to see him in an Avengers movie........I hope Gunn is wrong.

Who owns the Skrulls? They have strong ties to the Fantastic Four, but I thought I heard someone mention them in one of the MCU movies or Agents of SHIELD.

Exactly how I feel. It makes sense that he's owned to FOX because he first appeared in Fantastic Four but at the same time since then he's been primarily an Avengers villain for 50 years. But he's also a descendent of Reed so that could be why....but then again Marvel co-owns Scarlett and Quickie so....it doesn't make sense to me :\

I think they were mentioned in agents of shield.

@kidchipotle: I just hope the MCU can sometime use him.

@t209: They could do Black Vortex without Ronan. He was only there to [spoilers] [spoiler] which got [spoilered] anyways. His part wasn't really that important. Mind you, there still won't be a Black Vortex movie since it requires both the X-Men and the Guardians of the Galaxy.

Whattttt i hope Kang would be bought over like spiderman although this is highly unlikely. I really wanted to see Kang vs the avengers . That would be so awesome.

I can understand the ideas behind Marvel losing those characters but it pisses me off because there isn't a chance that they are actually going to be used by Fox.

@penguindust: pretty sure marvel owns the skrulls, while fox own the superskrull

Oh boy, way too many good characters with craptastic Fox...

@kcminato: Maybe they could use Earth's Mightiest Hero version, as in not pointing out that he is Reed Richard's descendents.

Still angry that they butchered Ronan the Accuser, but I only know him from Fantastic Four: World's Greatest Heroes and see him as tough authoritarian figure rather than a terrorist.

Ugh, Kang maybe a "classic" villain but holly crap his character(s) history and actions are confusing, convoluted, irritating, and don't make sense. Example: Iron Lad was a young Kang trying to be good, but there was still a bad Kang. Immortus(?) helped the Uncanny Avengers battle Kang when technically Immortus is an older version of Kang, what? Also Kang/Immortus was a pharaoh at some point, why? Kang sucks, glad he won't be in the MCU.

I hate Fox

Kang's origins are too tied to FF (he's a richards, his time travel tech is doom's) and also his purpose for traveling back in time is related to Apocalypse. There is no way to use the character without gutting his essence or altering it so completely that he becomes generic.

Good. Now Kang won't be turned into a parody of a villain.

@sprior93: considering who owns him

I wouldn't be so sure

No Kang hmm that sucks. Isn't Gladiator a Shi'Ar too?

@dbzk1999: Fox has done pretty well with their villains: Magneto(young and old), Mystique, Sabretooth, Hellfire Club, Stryker, Trask and the Sentinels. Yes, Doom was terrible, but that was almost a decade ago, at a time when superhero films were still finding their feet. Considering the quality of First Class and DOFP, I'm willing to give Fox the benefit of the doubt.

This. Come on. Kang was the only character after Thanos that The MCU could face off against.