How does Marvel decide which X-men are Fox's?

#1 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

I know Fox owns all the X-men characters.

But I was watching XFC and I was thinking why did they use Angel instead of Pixie?? ( I actually like Angel/Tempest, but isn't Pixie more popular?)

Then I thought Pixie first appeared in 2004.

Marvel sold the rights to Fox in 2000 right?

Does Fox automatically have rights to her character now? Is this an ongoing character stealing contract? lol

Also, where do characters like X-23, Namor, Generation Hope, and other newer x-men characters fit into this contract?

How is it is determined which Characters Fox own and which Marvel own?

(And TECHNICALLY-- Didn't Wolverine start in around Alpha Flight or Incredible Hulk? So if Marvel wanted to make an Alpha Flight movie-- it would be a loophole in the contract with Fox? I know they found loop holes with Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, and the Skrull.)

#2 Posted by EnSabahNurX (2313 posts) - - Show Bio

Fox has all their mutants I believe

Marvel can't use wolverine in movies just like they can't use scarlet witch in Avengers because she's a mutant.

The contract is pretty straight forward, Fox only has the rights to the mutant aspect of the marvel universe(anything x-men related)

#3 Posted by Baddamdog (2223 posts) - - Show Bio

Interesting. I wonder if Fox has a list of every single character they own.....because if they did that list would be hella long

#4 Posted by papad1992 (6822 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

I know Fox owns all the X-men characters.

But I was watching XFC and I was thinking why did they use Angel instead of Pixie?? ( I actually like Angel/Tempest, but isn't Pixie more popular?)

Then I thought Pixie first appeared in 2004.

Marvel sold the rights to Fox in 2000 right?

Does Fox automatically have rights to her character now? Is this an ongoing character stealing contract? lol

Also, where do characters like X-23, Namor, Generation Hope, and other newer x-men characters fit into this contract?

How is it is determined which Characters Fox own and which Marvel own?

(And TECHNICALLY-- Didn't Wolverine start in around Alpha Flight or Incredible Hulk? So if Marvel wanted to make an Alpha Flight movie-- it would be a loophole in the contract with Fox? I know they found loop holes with Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, and the Skrull.)

Interesting... don't know! I assume the contract that they signed would have been for all the mutants and not just the ones pre-2000!

#5 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@EnSabahNurX: @papad1992:

It doesn't work like that. I thought the contract was mutant based as well-- But it isn't. In an interview, it was stated that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch can be used by both companies. This also applies for the Skrull even though they fall under the Fantastic Four.

See how my question is still a bit unanswered?

And technically Generation Hope & X-23 are newer and have their own series. Does Fox automatically have right's over these series as well?? How does this contract work?? LOL

#6 Posted by papad1992 (6822 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@EnSabahNurX: @papad1992:

It doesn't work like that. I thought the contract was mutant based as well-- But it isn't. In an interview, it was stated that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch can be used by both companies. This also applies for the Skrull even though they fall under the Fantastic Four.

See how my question is still a bit unanswered?

And technically Generation Hope & X-23 are newer and have their own series. Does Fox automatically have right's over these series as well?? How does this contract work?? LOL

I remember reading somewhere that in the case of the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, if they were to be used in an X-Men movie they'd have no ties to the Avengers at all... But if the were to be used in an Avengers movie they'd have no ties to the X-Men or being mutants at all!

#7 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@EnSabahNurX: @papad1992:

It doesn't work like that. I thought the contract was mutant based as well-- But it isn't. In an interview, it was stated that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch can be used by both companies. This also applies for the Skrull even though they fall under the Fantastic Four.

See how my question is still a bit unanswered?

And technically Generation Hope & X-23 are newer and have their own series. Does Fox automatically have right's over these series as well?? How does this contract work?? LOL

I remember reading somewhere that in the case of the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, if they were to be used in an X-Men movie they'd have no ties to the Avengers at all... But if the were to be used in an Avengers movie they'd have no ties to the X-Men or being mutants at all!

LMAO!! Say Whhaaaatt?? I could see the x-men side but the Avengers side??? LMAO That is just crazy. I guess it could kinda maybe still work???

#8 Posted by papad1992 (6822 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@EnSabahNurX: @papad1992:

It doesn't work like that. I thought the contract was mutant based as well-- But it isn't. In an interview, it was stated that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch can be used by both companies. This also applies for the Skrull even though they fall under the Fantastic Four.

See how my question is still a bit unanswered?

And technically Generation Hope & X-23 are newer and have their own series. Does Fox automatically have right's over these series as well?? How does this contract work?? LOL

I remember reading somewhere that in the case of the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, if they were to be used in an X-Men movie they'd have no ties to the Avengers at all... But if the were to be used in an Avengers movie they'd have no ties to the X-Men or being mutants at all!

LMAO!! Say Whhaaaatt?? I could see the x-men side but the Avengers side??? LMAO That is just crazy. I guess it could kinda maybe still work???

I'm guessing ur shocked... :P

But yeah I think it could work... COULD being the key word!!

#9 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@EnSabahNurX: @papad1992:

It doesn't work like that. I thought the contract was mutant based as well-- But it isn't. In an interview, it was stated that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch can be used by both companies. This also applies for the Skrull even though they fall under the Fantastic Four.

See how my question is still a bit unanswered?

And technically Generation Hope & X-23 are newer and have their own series. Does Fox automatically have right's over these series as well?? How does this contract work?? LOL

I remember reading somewhere that in the case of the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, if they were to be used in an X-Men movie they'd have no ties to the Avengers at all... But if the were to be used in an Avengers movie they'd have no ties to the X-Men or being mutants at all!

LMAO!! Say Whhaaaatt?? I could see the x-men side but the Avengers side??? LMAO That is just crazy. I guess it could kinda maybe still work???

I'm guessing ur shocked... :P

But yeah I think it could work... COULD being the key word!!

But-- that is kinda stupid. It would take away some of the amazing elements of both characters... I remember back a while back Scarelt Johanson joked that Marvel talked to her about playing the Scarlet Witch but was changed to Black Widow instead.

#10 Posted by Imperius_Rex (452 posts) - - Show Bio

So does this all mean fox owns Namor!?! FUUUUUUUUUU

#11 Posted by papad1992 (6822 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@EnSabahNurX: @papad1992:

It doesn't work like that. I thought the contract was mutant based as well-- But it isn't. In an interview, it was stated that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch can be used by both companies. This also applies for the Skrull even though they fall under the Fantastic Four.

See how my question is still a bit unanswered?

And technically Generation Hope & X-23 are newer and have their own series. Does Fox automatically have right's over these series as well?? How does this contract work?? LOL

I remember reading somewhere that in the case of the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, if they were to be used in an X-Men movie they'd have no ties to the Avengers at all... But if the were to be used in an Avengers movie they'd have no ties to the X-Men or being mutants at all!

LMAO!! Say Whhaaaatt?? I could see the x-men side but the Avengers side??? LMAO That is just crazy. I guess it could kinda maybe still work???

I'm guessing ur shocked... :P

But yeah I think it could work... COULD being the key word!!

But-- that is kinda stupid. It would take away some of the amazing elements of both characters... I remember back a while back Scarelt Johanson joked that Marvel talked to her about playing the Scarlet Witch but was changed to Black Widow instead.

Well Black Widow makes more sense with the story anyways than Wanda!!

#12 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@EnSabahNurX: @papad1992:

It doesn't work like that. I thought the contract was mutant based as well-- But it isn't. In an interview, it was stated that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch can be used by both companies. This also applies for the Skrull even though they fall under the Fantastic Four.

See how my question is still a bit unanswered?

And technically Generation Hope & X-23 are newer and have their own series. Does Fox automatically have right's over these series as well?? How does this contract work?? LOL

I remember reading somewhere that in the case of the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, if they were to be used in an X-Men movie they'd have no ties to the Avengers at all... But if the were to be used in an Avengers movie they'd have no ties to the X-Men or being mutants at all!

LMAO!! Say Whhaaaatt?? I could see the x-men side but the Avengers side??? LMAO That is just crazy. I guess it could kinda maybe still work???

I'm guessing ur shocked... :P

But yeah I think it could work... COULD being the key word!!

But-- that is kinda stupid. It would take away some of the amazing elements of both characters... I remember back a while back Scarelt Johanson joked that Marvel talked to her about playing the Scarlet Witch but was changed to Black Widow instead.

Well Black Widow makes more sense with the story anyways than Wanda!!

Maybe- I wouldn't know enough to tell ya. :P

#13 Posted by papad1992 (6822 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@EnSabahNurX: @papad1992:

It doesn't work like that. I thought the contract was mutant based as well-- But it isn't. In an interview, it was stated that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch can be used by both companies. This also applies for the Skrull even though they fall under the Fantastic Four.

See how my question is still a bit unanswered?

And technically Generation Hope & X-23 are newer and have their own series. Does Fox automatically have right's over these series as well?? How does this contract work?? LOL

I remember reading somewhere that in the case of the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, if they were to be used in an X-Men movie they'd have no ties to the Avengers at all... But if the were to be used in an Avengers movie they'd have no ties to the X-Men or being mutants at all!

LMAO!! Say Whhaaaatt?? I could see the x-men side but the Avengers side??? LMAO That is just crazy. I guess it could kinda maybe still work???

I'm guessing ur shocked... :P

But yeah I think it could work... COULD being the key word!!

But-- that is kinda stupid. It would take away some of the amazing elements of both characters... I remember back a while back Scarelt Johanson joked that Marvel talked to her about playing the Scarlet Witch but was changed to Black Widow instead.

Well Black Widow makes more sense with the story anyways than Wanda!!

Maybe- I wouldn't know enough to tell ya. :P

U didn't see the Avengers!

#14 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@EnSabahNurX: @papad1992:

It doesn't work like that. I thought the contract was mutant based as well-- But it isn't. In an interview, it was stated that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch can be used by both companies. This also applies for the Skrull even though they fall under the Fantastic Four.

See how my question is still a bit unanswered?

And technically Generation Hope & X-23 are newer and have their own series. Does Fox automatically have right's over these series as well?? How does this contract work?? LOL

I remember reading somewhere that in the case of the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, if they were to be used in an X-Men movie they'd have no ties to the Avengers at all... But if the were to be used in an Avengers movie they'd have no ties to the X-Men or being mutants at all!

LMAO!! Say Whhaaaatt?? I could see the x-men side but the Avengers side??? LMAO That is just crazy. I guess it could kinda maybe still work???

I'm guessing ur shocked... :P

But yeah I think it could work... COULD being the key word!!

But-- that is kinda stupid. It would take away some of the amazing elements of both characters... I remember back a while back Scarelt Johanson joked that Marvel talked to her about playing the Scarlet Witch but was changed to Black Widow instead.

Well Black Widow makes more sense with the story anyways than Wanda!!

Maybe- I wouldn't know enough to tell ya. :P

U didn't see the Avengers!

Oh I thought you meant off of Avengers comic history-- not the movie.

#15 Posted by papad1992 (6822 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@EnSabahNurX: @papad1992:

It doesn't work like that. I thought the contract was mutant based as well-- But it isn't. In an interview, it was stated that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch can be used by both companies. This also applies for the Skrull even though they fall under the Fantastic Four.

See how my question is still a bit unanswered?

And technically Generation Hope & X-23 are newer and have their own series. Does Fox automatically have right's over these series as well?? How does this contract work?? LOL

I remember reading somewhere that in the case of the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, if they were to be used in an X-Men movie they'd have no ties to the Avengers at all... But if the were to be used in an Avengers movie they'd have no ties to the X-Men or being mutants at all!

LMAO!! Say Whhaaaatt?? I could see the x-men side but the Avengers side??? LMAO That is just crazy. I guess it could kinda maybe still work???

I'm guessing ur shocked... :P

But yeah I think it could work... COULD being the key word!!

But-- that is kinda stupid. It would take away some of the amazing elements of both characters... I remember back a while back Scarelt Johanson joked that Marvel talked to her about playing the Scarlet Witch but was changed to Black Widow instead.

Well Black Widow makes more sense with the story anyways than Wanda!!

Maybe- I wouldn't know enough to tell ya. :P

U didn't see the Avengers!

Oh I thought you meant off of Avengers comic history-- not the movie.

Sorry... I did mean the Avengers movie!

#16 Posted by windcaster (227 posts) - - Show Bio

I think Marvel could do like a heroes reborn thing with Wanda. Quicksilver I'm not sure maybe something to do with the Terrigen Mist the source of his powers.   

#17 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@EnSabahNurX: @papad1992:

It doesn't work like that. I thought the contract was mutant based as well-- But it isn't. In an interview, it was stated that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch can be used by both companies. This also applies for the Skrull even though they fall under the Fantastic Four.

See how my question is still a bit unanswered?

And technically Generation Hope & X-23 are newer and have their own series. Does Fox automatically have right's over these series as well?? How does this contract work?? LOL

I remember reading somewhere that in the case of the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, if they were to be used in an X-Men movie they'd have no ties to the Avengers at all... But if the were to be used in an Avengers movie they'd have no ties to the X-Men or being mutants at all!

LMAO!! Say Whhaaaatt?? I could see the x-men side but the Avengers side??? LMAO That is just crazy. I guess it could kinda maybe still work???

I'm guessing ur shocked... :P

But yeah I think it could work... COULD being the key word!!

But-- that is kinda stupid. It would take away some of the amazing elements of both characters... I remember back a while back Scarelt Johanson joked that Marvel talked to her about playing the Scarlet Witch but was changed to Black Widow instead.

Well Black Widow makes more sense with the story anyways than Wanda!!

Maybe- I wouldn't know enough to tell ya. :P

U didn't see the Avengers!

Oh I thought you meant off of Avengers comic history-- not the movie.

Sorry... I did mean the Avengers movie!

Lol Yea that's totally understandable in the movies. I was wonder what made Marvel decide to Make Black Widow the girl power of the Avengers movie over those like Scarlet Witch, Wasp, Tigra, and others. Not knocking Black Widow or anything.

#18 Posted by BaBaBoom (274 posts) - - Show Bio

@EnSabahNurX said:

Fox has all their mutants I believe

Does this mean Fox can make a Squirrel Girl movie? lol

#19 Posted by papad1992 (6822 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

Oh I thought you meant off of Avengers comic history-- not the movie.

Sorry... I did mean the Avengers movie!

Lol Yea that's totally understandable in the movies. I was wonder what made Marvel decide to Make Black Widow the girl power of the Avengers movie over those like Scarlet Witch, Wasp, Tigra, and others. Not knocking Black Widow or anything.

I would have rather had another female power on the team! Like Ms. Marvel, Wasp, or Tigra!! Scarlet Witch is too complicated to introduce film-wise!!

#20 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

Oh I thought you meant off of Avengers comic history-- not the movie.

Sorry... I did mean the Avengers movie!

Lol Yea that's totally understandable in the movies. I was wonder what made Marvel decide to Make Black Widow the girl power of the Avengers movie over those like Scarlet Witch, Wasp, Tigra, and others. Not knocking Black Widow or anything.

I would have rather had another female power on the team! Like Ms. Marvel, Wasp, or Tigra!! Scarlet Witch is too complicated to introduce film-wise!!

I agree! Ms.Marvel would have been perfect! No offense to Black Widow, but she wasn't much standing next to Iron man, Thor, and Hulk. Ms.Marvel would have been Great-- like the next Wonder Woman--- Although Wasp would have to wait until Ant-man appears in the Marvel Universe.

(I hope Marvel can get the rights to Elektra soon!)

#21 Posted by papad1992 (6822 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

Oh I thought you meant off of Avengers comic history-- not the movie.

Sorry... I did mean the Avengers movie!

Lol Yea that's totally understandable in the movies. I was wonder what made Marvel decide to Make Black Widow the girl power of the Avengers movie over those like Scarlet Witch, Wasp, Tigra, and others. Not knocking Black Widow or anything.

I would have rather had another female power on the team! Like Ms. Marvel, Wasp, or Tigra!! Scarlet Witch is too complicated to introduce film-wise!!

I agree! Ms.Marvel would have been perfect! No offense to Black Widow, but she wasn't much standing next to Iron man, Thor, and Hulk. Ms.Marvel would have been Great-- like the next Wonder Woman--- Although Wasp would have to wait until Ant-man appears in the Marvel Universe.

(I hope Marvel can get the rights to Elektra soon!)

If Ms. Marvel, Tigra, and Black Widow were on the team of the Avengers... I would have been the happiest person in the entire world! But I guess we'll have to wait till Avengers 2. I agree about Wasp needing Ant Man before being introduced!

And no to Elektra... Jennifer Gardner still has a tainted taste in my mouth!!

#22 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

Oh I thought you meant off of Avengers comic history-- not the movie.

Sorry... I did mean the Avengers movie!

Lol Yea that's totally understandable in the movies. I was wonder what made Marvel decide to Make Black Widow the girl power of the Avengers movie over those like Scarlet Witch, Wasp, Tigra, and others. Not knocking Black Widow or anything.

I would have rather had another female power on the team! Like Ms. Marvel, Wasp, or Tigra!! Scarlet Witch is too complicated to introduce film-wise!!

I agree! Ms.Marvel would have been perfect! No offense to Black Widow, but she wasn't much standing next to Iron man, Thor, and Hulk. Ms.Marvel would have been Great-- like the next Wonder Woman--- Although Wasp would have to wait until Ant-man appears in the Marvel Universe.

(I hope Marvel can get the rights to Elektra soon!)

If Ms. Marvel, Tigra, and Black Widow were on the team of the Avengers... I would have been the happiest person in the entire world! But I guess we'll have to wait till Avengers 2. I agree about Wasp needing Ant Man before being introduced!

And no to Elektra... Jennifer Gardner still has a tainted taste in my mouth!!

I wonder what the Avengers 2 will be like... Considering Marvel is aiming towards the guardians of the galaxy next. It just seems like a very questionable move on their behalf.. But maybe it's too premature to judge.. But I can't wait for Ms. Marvel. :DD

And Jenifer Garner was kinda of a bad choice. I love her enthusiastic energy for the part, but when she first told DD her name, everyone sure thought she said Electric Nachos! XD Good times. I feel if Marvel got the rights to her back, they could really do her and DD justice. Maybe give her a movie that has the same feel as Kill Bill Vol.1.

Although I am getting the impression that Marvel is a bit sexist sometimes... :/

#23 Posted by TheCannon (17839 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm pretty sure that they just got together and made agreements for which mutants Fox has. Fox owns most mutants, but Marvel owns Dazzler for example. It can get very confusing.

#24 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCannon said:

I'm pretty sure that they just got together and made agreements for which mutants Fox has. Fox owns most mutants, but Marvel owns Dazzler for example. It can get very confusing.

WHATT!! Marvel has the rights to Dazzler??

Get out of here! Now way!!

I did not know that.

I also heard they got the rights to deadpool back... but that is pretty much pointless considering the X-characters are owned by Fox. It's strange.. considering Marvel owns a few mutants. I wanna see this list of who owns who.

#25 Posted by Tyrus (1083 posts) - - Show Bio

Marvel can use Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch - but they can't have any mention of Magneto... Which is pretty dumb - I think that the Avengers and X-Men universes are better off being separate at different companies, thing is, that now Avengers has the whole "cinematic universe thing" - apparently Fox might use the Days of Future Past storyline for X-Men First Class 2 where they travel in the future and meet some "familiar" X-Men to tie the universe together...

#26 Posted by papad1992 (6822 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

Oh I thought you meant off of Avengers comic history-- not the movie.

Sorry... I did mean the Avengers movie!

Lol Yea that's totally understandable in the movies. I was wonder what made Marvel decide to Make Black Widow the girl power of the Avengers movie over those like Scarlet Witch, Wasp, Tigra, and others. Not knocking Black Widow or anything.

I would have rather had another female power on the team! Like Ms. Marvel, Wasp, or Tigra!! Scarlet Witch is too complicated to introduce film-wise!!

I agree! Ms.Marvel would have been perfect! No offense to Black Widow, but she wasn't much standing next to Iron man, Thor, and Hulk. Ms.Marvel would have been Great-- like the next Wonder Woman--- Although Wasp would have to wait until Ant-man appears in the Marvel Universe.

(I hope Marvel can get the rights to Elektra soon!)

If Ms. Marvel, Tigra, and Black Widow were on the team of the Avengers... I would have been the happiest person in the entire world! But I guess we'll have to wait till Avengers 2. I agree about Wasp needing Ant Man before being introduced!

And no to Elektra... Jennifer Gardner still has a tainted taste in my mouth!!

I wonder what the Avengers 2 will be like... Considering Marvel is aiming towards the guardians of the galaxy next. It just seems like a very questionable move on their behalf.. But maybe it's too premature to judge.. But I can't wait for Ms. Marvel. :DD

And Jenifer Garner was kinda of a bad choice. I love her enthusiastic energy for the part, but when she first told DD her name, everyone sure thought she said Electric Nachos! XD Good times. I feel if Marvel got the rights to her back, they could really do her and DD justice. Maybe give her a movie that has the same feel as Kill Bill Vol.1.

Although I am getting the impression that Marvel is a bit sexist sometimes... :/

Guardians of the Galaxy tie-in says to me that Ms. Marvel could possibly be in the sequel!

I think they're redoing another Daredevil movie... if they want to include Elektra hopefully they'll cast her right!

"Electric Nachos"... hahaha I remember that!!

#27 Edited by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

Oh I thought you meant off of Avengers comic history-- not the movie.

Sorry... I did mean the Avengers movie!

Lol Yea that's totally understandable in the movies. I was wonder what made Marvel decide to Make Black Widow the girl power of the Avengers movie over those like Scarlet Witch, Wasp, Tigra, and others. Not knocking Black Widow or anything.

I would have rather had another female power on the team! Like Ms. Marvel, Wasp, or Tigra!! Scarlet Witch is too complicated to introduce film-wise!!

I agree! Ms.Marvel would have been perfect! No offense to Black Widow, but she wasn't much standing next to Iron man, Thor, and Hulk. Ms.Marvel would have been Great-- like the next Wonder Woman--- Although Wasp would have to wait until Ant-man appears in the Marvel Universe.

(I hope Marvel can get the rights to Elektra soon!)

If Ms. Marvel, Tigra, and Black Widow were on the team of the Avengers... I would have been the happiest person in the entire world! But I guess we'll have to wait till Avengers 2. I agree about Wasp needing Ant Man before being introduced!

And no to Elektra... Jennifer Gardner still has a tainted taste in my mouth!!

I wonder what the Avengers 2 will be like... Considering Marvel is aiming towards the guardians of the galaxy next. It just seems like a very questionable move on their behalf.. But maybe it's too premature to judge.. But I can't wait for Ms. Marvel. :DD

And Jenifer Garner was kinda of a bad choice. I love her enthusiastic energy for the part, but when she first told DD her name, everyone sure thought she said Electric Nachos! XD Good times. I feel if Marvel got the rights to her back, they could really do her and DD justice. Maybe give her a movie that has the same feel as Kill Bill Vol.1.

Although I am getting the impression that Marvel is a bit sexist sometimes... :/

Guardians of the Galaxy tie-in says to me that Ms. Marvel could possibly be in the sequel!

I think they're redoing another Daredevil movie... if they want to include Elektra hopefully they'll cast her right!

"Electric Nachos"... hahaha I remember that!!

I guess there will be some perks to a GotG movie after all!

As for a DD movie, Fox has to to start filming by fall if they want to keep the rights to DD. I hope to goodness that they loose them. I heard it's a year or two wait for Elektra's rights to revert back. It would be nice to see DD, Elektra, and especially Kingpin back in Marvel's hands. (Btw I am shocked Kingpin is under Daredevil rights. I thought he would have been Spiderman.)

#28 Posted by Question28 (4 posts) - - Show Bio

I want to know with the newest movie announced, does Fox own the rights to Vance Astro? Here is a mutant that has never had anything to do with the X-Titles, ever. But is a mutant so do they own him as well?

#29 Posted by papad1992 (6822 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

Oh I thought you meant off of Avengers comic history-- not the movie.

Sorry... I did mean the Avengers movie!

Lol Yea that's totally understandable in the movies. I was wonder what made Marvel decide to Make Black Widow the girl power of the Avengers movie over those like Scarlet Witch, Wasp, Tigra, and others. Not knocking Black Widow or anything.

I would have rather had another female power on the team! Like Ms. Marvel, Wasp, or Tigra!! Scarlet Witch is too complicated to introduce film-wise!!

I agree! Ms.Marvel would have been perfect! No offense to Black Widow, but she wasn't much standing next to Iron man, Thor, and Hulk. Ms.Marvel would have been Great-- like the next Wonder Woman--- Although Wasp would have to wait until Ant-man appears in the Marvel Universe.

(I hope Marvel can get the rights to Elektra soon!)

If Ms. Marvel, Tigra, and Black Widow were on the team of the Avengers... I would have been the happiest person in the entire world! But I guess we'll have to wait till Avengers 2. I agree about Wasp needing Ant Man before being introduced!

And no to Elektra... Jennifer Gardner still has a tainted taste in my mouth!!

I wonder what the Avengers 2 will be like... Considering Marvel is aiming towards the guardians of the galaxy next. It just seems like a very questionable move on their behalf.. But maybe it's too premature to judge.. But I can't wait for Ms. Marvel. :DD

And Jenifer Garner was kinda of a bad choice. I love her enthusiastic energy for the part, but when she first told DD her name, everyone sure thought she said Electric Nachos! XD Good times. I feel if Marvel got the rights to her back, they could really do her and DD justice. Maybe give her a movie that has the same feel as Kill Bill Vol.1.

Although I am getting the impression that Marvel is a bit sexist sometimes... :/

Guardians of the Galaxy tie-in says to me that Ms. Marvel could possibly be in the sequel!

I think they're redoing another Daredevil movie... if they want to include Elektra hopefully they'll cast her right!

"Electric Nachos"... hahaha I remember that!!

I guess there will be some perks to a GotG movie after all!

As for a DD movie, Fox has to to start filming by fall if they want to keep the rights to DD. I hope to goodness that they loose them. I heard it's a year or two wait for Elektra's rights to revert back. It would be nice to see DD, Elektra, and especially Kingpin back in Marvel's hands. (Btw I am shocked Kingpin is under Daredevil rights. I thought he would have been Spiderman.)

I've always associated Kingpin with Spider Man! Just because I grew up watching Spiderman the Animated Series!

#30 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

Oh I thought you meant off of Avengers comic history-- not the movie.

Sorry... I did mean the Avengers movie!

Lol Yea that's totally understandable in the movies. I was wonder what made Marvel decide to Make Black Widow the girl power of the Avengers movie over those like Scarlet Witch, Wasp, Tigra, and others. Not knocking Black Widow or anything.

I would have rather had another female power on the team! Like Ms. Marvel, Wasp, or Tigra!! Scarlet Witch is too complicated to introduce film-wise!!

I agree! Ms.Marvel would have been perfect! No offense to Black Widow, but she wasn't much standing next to Iron man, Thor, and Hulk. Ms.Marvel would have been Great-- like the next Wonder Woman--- Although Wasp would have to wait until Ant-man appears in the Marvel Universe.

(I hope Marvel can get the rights to Elektra soon!)

If Ms. Marvel, Tigra, and Black Widow were on the team of the Avengers... I would have been the happiest person in the entire world! But I guess we'll have to wait till Avengers 2. I agree about Wasp needing Ant Man before being introduced!

And no to Elektra... Jennifer Gardner still has a tainted taste in my mouth!!

I wonder what the Avengers 2 will be like... Considering Marvel is aiming towards the guardians of the galaxy next. It just seems like a very questionable move on their behalf.. But maybe it's too premature to judge.. But I can't wait for Ms. Marvel. :DD

And Jenifer Garner was kinda of a bad choice. I love her enthusiastic energy for the part, but when she first told DD her name, everyone sure thought she said Electric Nachos! XD Good times. I feel if Marvel got the rights to her back, they could really do her and DD justice. Maybe give her a movie that has the same feel as Kill Bill Vol.1.

Although I am getting the impression that Marvel is a bit sexist sometimes... :/

Guardians of the Galaxy tie-in says to me that Ms. Marvel could possibly be in the sequel!

I think they're redoing another Daredevil movie... if they want to include Elektra hopefully they'll cast her right!

"Electric Nachos"... hahaha I remember that!!

I guess there will be some perks to a GotG movie after all!

As for a DD movie, Fox has to to start filming by fall if they want to keep the rights to DD. I hope to goodness that they loose them. I heard it's a year or two wait for Elektra's rights to revert back. It would be nice to see DD, Elektra, and especially Kingpin back in Marvel's hands. (Btw I am shocked Kingpin is under Daredevil rights. I thought he would have been Spiderman.)

I've always associated Kingpin with Spider Man! Just because I grew up watching Spiderman the Animated Series!

Exactly!! Same here! Also is Elektra tied to Daredevil or is she her own title with rights?

#31 Posted by papad1992 (6822 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992 said:

@poisonfleur said:

Oh I thought you meant off of Avengers comic history-- not the movie.

Sorry... I did mean the Avengers movie!

Lol Yea that's totally understandable in the movies. I was wonder what made Marvel decide to Make Black Widow the girl power of the Avengers movie over those like Scarlet Witch, Wasp, Tigra, and others. Not knocking Black Widow or anything.

I would have rather had another female power on the team! Like Ms. Marvel, Wasp, or Tigra!! Scarlet Witch is too complicated to introduce film-wise!!

I agree! Ms.Marvel would have been perfect! No offense to Black Widow, but she wasn't much standing next to Iron man, Thor, and Hulk. Ms.Marvel would have been Great-- like the next Wonder Woman--- Although Wasp would have to wait until Ant-man appears in the Marvel Universe.

(I hope Marvel can get the rights to Elektra soon!)

If Ms. Marvel, Tigra, and Black Widow were on the team of the Avengers... I would have been the happiest person in the entire world! But I guess we'll have to wait till Avengers 2. I agree about Wasp needing Ant Man before being introduced!

And no to Elektra... Jennifer Gardner still has a tainted taste in my mouth!!

I wonder what the Avengers 2 will be like... Considering Marvel is aiming towards the guardians of the galaxy next. It just seems like a very questionable move on their behalf.. But maybe it's too premature to judge.. But I can't wait for Ms. Marvel. :DD

And Jenifer Garner was kinda of a bad choice. I love her enthusiastic energy for the part, but when she first told DD her name, everyone sure thought she said Electric Nachos! XD Good times. I feel if Marvel got the rights to her back, they could really do her and DD justice. Maybe give her a movie that has the same feel as Kill Bill Vol.1.

Although I am getting the impression that Marvel is a bit sexist sometimes... :/

Guardians of the Galaxy tie-in says to me that Ms. Marvel could possibly be in the sequel!

I think they're redoing another Daredevil movie... if they want to include Elektra hopefully they'll cast her right!

"Electric Nachos"... hahaha I remember that!!

I guess there will be some perks to a GotG movie after all!

As for a DD movie, Fox has to to start filming by fall if they want to keep the rights to DD. I hope to goodness that they loose them. I heard it's a year or two wait for Elektra's rights to revert back. It would be nice to see DD, Elektra, and especially Kingpin back in Marvel's hands. (Btw I am shocked Kingpin is under Daredevil rights. I thought he would have been Spiderman.)

I've always associated Kingpin with Spider Man! Just because I grew up watching Spiderman the Animated Series!

Exactly!! Same here! Also is Elektra tied to Daredevil or is she her own title with rights?

Don't know...

#32 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@papad1992: @TheCannon: Random thing: Did you know Fox apparently even owns Viper? I didn't even know she was X-men themed character.

I gotta see this list of Fox's

#33 Edited by CheeseSticks (2359 posts) - - Show Bio
#34 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@CheeseSticks: Lol that doesn't help. That only shows which characters have been used already. lol Not which characters each studio has access to.

#35 Edited by PhoenixoftheTides (3443 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@CheeseSticks: Lol that doesn't help. That only shows which characters have been used already. lol Not which characters each studio has access to.

Just an FYI, since I happen to work in the entertainment industry on the legal side, in cases like this, it often happens that the major characters/franchises are determined up front, and if it is unclear as to whether minor characters/franchises fall under the terms of an agreement, it gets worked out later. This even happens with the discographies of songwriters when they switch labels - the companies and owner(s) have to come to an agreement based on time of recording, which songs were created while the artist was under a particular contract and etc. The only time all of the respective characters, trademarks and rights are determined up front is in the case of an outright buyout of a company or owner(s) rights to them, such as when Disney purchased Marvel Entertainment and acquired rights to all of Marvel's estimated 5,000 characters outright.

For example, it's likely that Namor, who is well known among comic book fans were never determined up front for the Fantastic Four or X-Men movie franchises because they are considered less important than other characters. If the next X-Men movie wanted to claim he was a mutant on the team, Fox would come into confrontation with Universal, who owns distribution rights for Namor, to see if Namor would fall under their license based upon each companies' respect agreements with Disney. On the flip side, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver fall into more murky territory as they are both mutants but also identified with The Avengers. It is possible it was never indicated which franchise they were associated with; this probably could have been hashed out if they went ahead to make a Magneto-themed movie.

ETA: Interestingly, even the link provided by CheeseSticks can only say that Quicksilver would "likely" appear in a Fox production so this really hadn't been worked out yet.

#36 Posted by CheeseSticks (2359 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@CheeseSticks: Lol that doesn't help. That only shows which characters have been used already. lol Not which characters each studio has access to.

Well if you would have read the link i provide, its says : Here’s a breakdown of the whole thing in list form (any characters/franchises not listed are under the rights of Marvel Studios):

So everyone in Marvel who are not on the list are owned by Marvel Studio.

#37 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@CheeseSticks said:

@poisonfleur said:

@CheeseSticks: Lol that doesn't help. That only shows which characters have been used already. lol Not which characters each studio has access to.

Well if you would have read the link i provide, its says : Here’s a breakdown of the whole thing in list form (any characters/franchises not listed are under the rights of Marvel Studios):

So everyone in Marvel who are not on the list are owned by Marvel Studio.

I did read it & that isn't 100% true. Fox has access to Many More characters such as Viper, HYDRA, Silver Samurai, Yukio, and many more that we are unaware of. Aside from the characters in the movies, Fox has access to characters that aren't exactly X-men (But have been in X-stories.) There are so many gray area characters and there is more then what is listed in the link you sent. It's so confusing.

@PhoenixoftheTides: You said characters are decided up front. Then the characters where decided around year 2000? Right? Then why are newer created after 2000 (characters such as Angel Salvadore and Dr.Kavita)? Is it because they automatically falls under as X-men characters?

#38 Posted by PhoenixoftheTides (3443 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@PhoenixoftheTides: You said characters are decided up front. Then the characters where decided around year 2000? Right? Then why are newer created after 2000 (characters such as Angel Salvadore and Dr.Kavita)? Is it because they automatically falls under as X-men characters?

The licenses were most likely worded in such a way that new characters specific to the X-Men books would fall under the terms of the agreement. Language such as 'including but not limited to' could be used to incorporate characters that were not specifically named in the contract and who have exclusively appeared in 'X' books. For example, it could read 'All X-Men and mutant characters including but not limited to characters such as Wolverine, Storm, Professor X, Jean Grey and new characters created for and predominantly appearing in the 'X-Men' comic books fall under the terms of this agreement.'

By using such language, you can expand the terms of your contract to include other entities that are not specifically named in it.

#39 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@PhoenixoftheTides said:

@poisonfleur said:

@PhoenixoftheTides: You said characters are decided up front. Then the characters where decided around year 2000? Right? Then why are newer created after 2000 (characters such as Angel Salvadore and Dr.Kavita)? Is it because they automatically falls under as X-men characters?

The licenses were most likely worded in such a way that new characters specific to the X-Men books would fall under the terms of the agreement. Language such as 'including but not limited to' could be used to incorporate characters that were not specifically named in the contract and who have exclusively appeared in 'X' books. For example, it could read 'All X-Men and mutant characters including but not limited to characters such as Wolverine, Storm, Professor X, Jean Grey and new characters created for and predominantly appearing in the 'X-Men' comic books fall under the terms of this agreement.'

By using such language, you can expand the terms of your contract to include other entities that are not specifically named in it.

That is pretty clever. I am a bit bitter-- I want all of fox's properties to revert back to Marvel. Any loophole would be great. lol Like every character in Marvel's Nemesis: Rise of the imperfects are amazing. Storm, Wolverine, Elektra, Daredevil, Spiderman, Magneto, Thing.

I just have a feeling that if Marvel had these characters back they would focus more on them like they did in the past.

Only Time Can Tell.

#40 Posted by papad1992 (6822 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@papad1992: @TheCannon: Random thing: Did you know Fox apparently even owns Viper? I didn't even know she was X-men themed character.

I gotta see this list of Fox's

Is there a public list to view!?

#41 Posted by PhoenixoftheTides (3443 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur said:

@PhoenixoftheTides said:

@poisonfleur said:

@PhoenixoftheTides: You said characters are decided up front. Then the characters where decided around year 2000? Right? Then why are newer created after 2000 (characters such as Angel Salvadore and Dr.Kavita)? Is it because they automatically falls under as X-men characters?

The licenses were most likely worded in such a way that new characters specific to the X-Men books would fall under the terms of the agreement. Language such as 'including but not limited to' could be used to incorporate characters that were not specifically named in the contract and who have exclusively appeared in 'X' books. For example, it could read 'All X-Men and mutant characters including but not limited to characters such as Wolverine, Storm, Professor X, Jean Grey and new characters created for and predominantly appearing in the 'X-Men' comic books fall under the terms of this agreement.'

By using such language, you can expand the terms of your contract to include other entities that are not specifically named in it.

That is pretty clever. I am a bit bitter-- I want all of fox's properties to revert back to Marvel. Any loophole would be great. lol Like every character in Marvel's Nemesis: Rise of the imperfects are amazing. Storm, Wolverine, Elektra, Daredevil, Spiderman, Magneto, Thing.

I just have a feeling that if Marvel had these characters back they would focus more on them like they did in the past.

Only Time Can Tell.

I think you have to look at it from Marvel's standpoint. They made a lot of money off of selling these licenses. They don't necessarily want to find any loopholes to be able to make a movie with all of their characters. They still have the right to approve scripts, designs and many aspects of the movie (obviously, Stan Lee takes advantage of this to appear in so many random Marvel Universe films) so it's not really like Marvel regrets it. Also, these licenses only apply to film rights. Videogames with these characters can still be created, hence the "Ultimate Alliance" and "Marvel vs Capcom" games.

#42 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@PhoenixoftheTides said:

@poisonfleur said:

@PhoenixoftheTides said:

@poisonfleur said:

@PhoenixoftheTides: You said characters are decided up front. Then the characters where decided around year 2000? Right? Then why are newer created after 2000 (characters such as Angel Salvadore and Dr.Kavita)? Is it because they automatically falls under as X-men characters?

The licenses were most likely worded in such a way that new characters specific to the X-Men books would fall under the terms of the agreement. Language such as 'including but not limited to' could be used to incorporate characters that were not specifically named in the contract and who have exclusively appeared in 'X' books. For example, it could read 'All X-Men and mutant characters including but not limited to characters such as Wolverine, Storm, Professor X, Jean Grey and new characters created for and predominantly appearing in the 'X-Men' comic books fall under the terms of this agreement.'

By using such language, you can expand the terms of your contract to include other entities that are not specifically named in it.

That is pretty clever. I am a bit bitter-- I want all of fox's properties to revert back to Marvel. Any loophole would be great. lol Like every character in Marvel's Nemesis: Rise of the imperfects are amazing. Storm, Wolverine, Elektra, Daredevil, Spiderman, Magneto, Thing.

I just have a feeling that if Marvel had these characters back they would focus more on them like they did in the past.

Only Time Can Tell.

I think you have to look at it from Marvel's standpoint. They made a lot of money off of selling these licenses. They don't necessarily want to find any loopholes to be able to make a movie with all of their characters. They still have the right to approve scripts, designs and many aspects of the movie (obviously, Stan Lee takes advantage of this to appear in so many random Marvel Universe films) so it's not really like Marvel regrets it. Also, these licenses only apply to film rights. Videogames with these characters can still be created, hence the "Ultimate Alliance" and "Marvel vs Capcom" games.

I suppose. But I am really impressed by the quality and effort Disney/Marvel has put into making their movies. And IMO, the last 2 x-men films sucked. I really hate the way the films are cast. Storm, Wolverine, Emma, FC Xavier, FC Mystique, Shaw, Jean, Rogue, and Iceman where not as how I imagined any of them. Although I love Patrick Stewart, Rebecca Romain, james marsden and Alan Cumming.

Video game rights for the X-men suck right now too. The last X-men game. X-men Destiny was ABYSMAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#43 Posted by PhoenixoftheTides (3443 posts) - - Show Bio

@poisonfleur: In purely business terms, Marvel cares more about maximizing sales of their comics, merchandise and licenses (they may, in fact, get a portion of ticket sales) than they do about creating top quality product. It tends to be the case that quality is sacrificed when you just want to make as much money as possible. Marvel has always been this way. It just becomes more obvious as you start to notice their long term history. Fans hate some of the films, but as sad as this is to say, fans also created the films. The directors often strongly believe in the quality of their casts and vision. In many cases, script writers actually care about nailing the right tone (even if they aren't fans themselves, the better ones will study and work with the owner, Marvel/Disney, to craft a good story). Now and again, though, you get absolutely wretched combinations, like the team that excreted "Elektra" or a little less worse, teams with directors that have barely directed big budget flicks but are somewhat critically acclaimed, and get "X-Men Origins: Wolverine".

As far as they're concerned, they didn't create the video games and have little experiences doing it. The head of their company and the executives probably look at the screen, see explosions, figure the kids will love it and envision cash flowing out of their parents' wallets.

#44 Posted by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

@PhoenixoftheTides: ); Youch.. That has to be one bitter truth I wasn't looking forward to hearing. A little piece of me hates that you had to say that... but I can see what you mean. What a bummer. I guess I should be a bit more selective in which Marvel products I buy.. Hopefully that will make a statement somehow.

#45 Edited by poisonfleur (2926 posts) - - Show Bio

bump

#46 Posted by devilsgrin81 (466 posts) - - Show Bio

talk about thread necromancy poisonfleur...

Aaron Johnson is looking smokin' hot as Pietro...

Elizabeth Olsen looks eerily perfect as Wanda...

Evan Peters... ewww... just ewww...

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.