Fox's new FF reboot...could Marvel sue?

[The Bat]

I presume people are talking about this...

http://bamsmackpow.com/2014/08/25/fa...ding%20on%20FS

That's not what I'm talking about at all...I never even saw that. I'm just talking about all the info that has been released for real, just spells disaster to me. It shows me that film maker and the cast simply don't have a clue about the Fantastic Four.

[Brazoo]

It's an interesting question. This is my guess:

You probably know this already, but I think it make sense to think about this specific part of the agreement: I don't think movies are ever licensed, the movie rights are signed over, I think this is specifically arranged this way so that an author or a company like Marvel can't later claim that their property was damaged. When an IP's movie rights are signed over it essentially becomes two separate properties.

I think this might be one of the reasons movie rights are arranged this way in the first place. Movies are such huge investments and high-risk that it makes sense that studios would protect themselves this way.

My other thought is that Marvel could probably sue if they really wanted to, no matter what the agreement was - because I think anyone could sue anyone for almost anything if they really want to - but winning is a whole other thing.

With all the gigantic flops made from adaptations through the history of film I've never heard of this happening though. If Marvel sues Fox I hope Berkley Breathed sues Disney over "Mars Needs Moms" next.

[hedrap]

Braz: Re licensed versus signed over, that's pretty accurate. It's also so the studio can control the future's property. Imagine the bidding war Lego could have ignited after that one film was successfully established and WB had no option. I know Godzilla is a license that can be revoked at any time.

[Brazoo]

Braz: Re licensed versus signed over, that's pretty accurate. It's also so the studio can control the future's property. Imagine the bidding war Lego could have ignited after that one film was successfully established and WB had no option. I know Godzilla is a license that can be revoked at any time.

Okay cool - I'm not a lawyer or anything - so from what basic things I do understand about IPs that just made sense to me - so it's good to get confirmation.

I didn't know Godzilla was licensed - that's interesting.

[hedrap]

Re: Godzilla. It's technically an option, but it's not the same kind of rights options that occurs for books and whatnot. After Emmerich's Godzilla, Toho let it sit at Sony because they were still paying on the option, but then decided to yank it when they felt it was time to reboot the franchise. So they held it until two producers came along who eventually took it to Legendary. The Bond rights are also "temporary", in that Danjaq could leave MGM and reboot. IIRC, they almost went to Sony after Brosnan.

[clemso]

Doomed

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/notyetamovie/news/?a=106700

[Bruce Banner]

Doomed

If true, that's one more reason not to bother with this utter aberration of a movie.

[jimsmegos]

The Corman flick is looking better and better and better.

[enyawd72]

Josh Trankletoes better hope I never run into him in a dark alley, or it's CLOBBERIN' TIME!

[madmarva]

Looks like Rag Man

[MIB41]

Horrid... If I was their accountant, I would start working on the tax right off for the loss on this investment.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I can't believe I'm defending the Corman film....but it has it's heart in the right place. And William Culp (son of Robert Culp) is a far better Doom than that Nip/Tuck guy for sure. I thought the Thing suit was pretty decent too, esp. for the time, and no budget.

This new FF film is definitely falling under the "Vote With Your Dollar...or Lack of" category. It it ends up as bad as it looks, I'll just happily avoid it.

Chris

[Bionicfanboy66]

Maybe the Corman film should get a theatrical release instead of this trainwreck.