Talk:Marvel Entertainment/Archives/2017

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in the films table

Please see the discussion here and here regarding this matter (and the hidden note that mentions it in the article). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Generation X

Why isn't there a mention of the Generation X made-for-TV movie? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X_(film) Rachelskit (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It was a New World production only, so I assume like I most editors did not consider Marvel Films nor Marvel Entertainment Group involvement. Finding sources that does confirm MEG involvement/credit, I am adding to the list. Spshu (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

FF rights

If Constantin Film owned the Fantastic Four film rights then the film would be copyrighted by Constantin Film not 20th Century Fox as my copy of the FF 2005 movie DVD box indicates. Constantin Films either lost its rights when Marvel bought the 1994 unaired FF film or 21c Fox acquired the rights in the funding agreement (which is not unusual). MCU Exchange.com article cited even cites a Hollywood Reporter article, which mentions the Constatin's franchises and hits, Fack Ju Gohte and Resident Evil, but no mention of FF. Spshu (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

[1] says the most likely situation is that Constantin retains the production rights first sold to them in 1986, but that Fox has exclusive distribution rights as part of the 1999 deal with Marvel. This is a complex issue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The key word is "film licensing" agreement. Film rights by means producing and financing the movie. Distribution is a different story; Constantin don't have the ability to distribute themselves so 20th Century Fox, being the biggest movie studio of all Hollywood, has the ability to distribute the F4 meaning they get to negotiate how many theaters they are willing to show the F4. The only way around this issue is to reconstruct the sentences and being real clear to the point.

My take: "As of 2017, Marvel has film licensing agreements with 20th Century Fox (which owns X-Men), Constantin Film (which owns the Fantastic Four, but has the distribution deal with 20th Century Fox), and Sony Pictures (which owns Spider-Man), and a theme park licensing agreement with Universal Parks & Resorts (which only applies exclusive rights to Islands of Adventure and Universal Studios Japan)." XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

XXzoonamiXX: "Take to the talk page because you weren't responsive a week earlier". I was responsive a week earlier, I started this discussion. Since you were the bold one and reverted, your position should not placed into the article until the discussion is over. Others are allowed into the discussion and some time too much commenting by the original parties make it hard to catch up with the discussion. Neither of you have responded to the fact that production rights mean having the copyright on the film. The one of the FF films I have has a 20th Century Fox copyright not Constantin. CBR is speculative about the extension in 2002. Spshu (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

https://www.inverse.com/article/39387-disney-fox-merger-fantastic-four-marvel

http://comicbook.com/marvel/2017/12/12/what-would-disney-fox-deal-mean-for-fantastic-four/

https://nerdist.com/fantastic-four-marvel-fox-disney-merger-nerdist-news/

https://screenrant.com/disney-fox-fantastic-4-rights-constantin/

http://www.slashfilm.com/fantastic-four-rights-disney-20th-century-fox/

I don't know what makes you think Fox owns the film rights to F4, as is just because they distribute it. It doesn't mean they actually own the full rights to it, just like Universal owns the distribution rights to the Hulk, but Disney owns the film rights to the green character. Fox owns the distribution rights to the last three F4 movies just like they own the distribution rights to the DreamWorks Animation films 2013-2017. This is quite clear at it is. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I just told you and your response is "I don't know what makes you think Fox owns the film rights to F4,..." I have said it TWICE NOW. Go back and read. No source has been clear that Constantin owns production rights.

• Inverse is base on a Screenrant article, so should not even been listed. And it shows uncertain that Constantin Film owns film rights. "...but as far as anyone knew, Constantin Films still owned the production rights."
• Comicbook indicates both companies shared film rights. "That changed in 1999 when Constantin entered into an agreement with 20th Century Fox, which saw the two companies share the movie rights." That doesn't support your production/distribution split.
• Nerdist is uncertain too, but acts like they are. "...deal appears..."
• screenrant.com "To the delight of fans, the Fox-Disney deal has gone through.." Which is not the case as regulators have to sign off. Another screenrant.com article states: "Although Constantin Films’ agreement with 20th Century Fox remains unclear at this stage, as the fine print of their arrangement has never been made public,"
• slashfilm.com: "In fact, because of Fantastic Four‘s long and troubled history with its movie rights, the foursome could be excluded from the Disney-Fox deal altogether." "It’s uncertain how strictly Constantin Film and 20th Century Fox divide ownership,"

See zero certainty in Cosntantin Films's ownership in those articles. Constantin should have lost their rights with the purchase of the unreleased 1994 FF film. Maybe Constantin was brought on board as they decided to be a co-financier and co-producer of the film as they came with existing development on a film.

Universal is not the copyright holder on the Incredible Hulk movie, while 20c Fox is copyright holder on FF 2005 not Constantin. To simplify, production right means copyright. So third time, this reason has been given. Spshu (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

No, your beliefs to the opinion that is clearly unsupported doesn't mean you're credible. There's no source indicating anything meaningful that Constantin lost the film rights, it's just very narrow and unsupported. Holy Cow man, Universal is already sourced to be the copyright holder of the Incredible Hulk movie since THEY distribute a movie (cite the fact it doesn't), that's how all film industries work. And even if it "appears to" according to some sources, most sources listed Constantin Films as the distributor and hence credible and it's clear crystal as it is. Your wording and trickling down specific meanings of such are not valid and not helpful to the argument. The first link does not indicate that Fox owns the film rights to it, and just because that link shares a source with another doesn't mean the first link is invalid. It says it only shares the rights with Constantin Films meaning Fox does NOT own the film rights to it. It pretty much crystal clear Constantin owns the film rights to it and Fox does not. You also have not given any reasons why the sources I listed is not valid, even though they're much more believable and have more links why the deal with F4 goes down. This is clear at it is and saying so doesn't make your argument any more credible.

Last chance, I'll have to report you to the admins since you're engaged in an edit war and not willing to indicate you're facing the facts and choosing to narrow-down wording and arguments in the midst of the heavy evidence against you and to see who's right. They all appear to be reputable and therefore they are credible and more valid than you ever have. Please don't do that unless the facts are clear. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

←I gave a source in the article, which you have ignored ( Newsweek article "What a Disney/Fox deal could mean for Deadpool, the X-Men": "Fox has the rights to the X-Men, including Wolverine, Deadpool and the Fantastic Four."). No, distribution right is not copyright but production as that is authoring the film. Basically that is how copyrights work and therefor the film industry works. Distribution right is something that the film industry came up with and does not effect copyright. If distribution grants copyright then whether or not Constanin has production right is meaningless. It is not already sourced that "Universal is already sourced to be the copyright holder of the Incredible Hulk movie since THEY distribute a movie ". You needed to source it not me as it is not currently sourced. Quoting your sources is not "valid and not helpful to the argument". So you like your sources only to the point that they validate yours, sorry, but that isn't how sourcing works here. Just because they are speculating, (you know the reason I gave why they are not valid) as I point out, doesn't make it factual.

No, you are engaged in edit warring since, you made the edit then was reverted (BRD). I am facing facts that no one in the media knows exactly what rights Constantin Films or 20th Century Fox. The facts are not clear for your position, which you have to prove as you were reverted. Go head report me but expect a boomerang. Spshu (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I also gave you the sources which you have completely ignored time and time (by narrowing down wording to argue that they don't really mean at all). Your arguments made it quite clear that you can't distinguish between actual film and distribution rights, as well as exclusive and permanent, you think all of them just happens to be the same thing. Adding strong beliefs just because the sources say when it's quite clear it's contrary simply because you want to is not helpful. You widely disregard other sources or narrow down your words in favor of the main source you cited that is already cited, meaning you're the one that actually engages in an edit war since you disregard other people's opinions and continually add the main source which has either been disputed or factually refuted. Instead of continuing on the conservation with me, you just simply revert and revert without making an actual counterargument. The source you cited doesn't mean it's factually correct when there's another credible source involved and it's more clear. Second, my sources state quite clearly that Constantin is mentioned and most of them indicate they own the film rights, the years 1986, and the years 1999 when both Constantin and Fox entered an agreement, which negates your argument that Fox owns the film rights since it's nothing more than simplified rather than explicit. Cite me anything that Constantin doesn’t own the film rights (you haven’t so far, and it’s impossible to find anything that F4 doesn’t own the film rights to F4 at all). None of that really indicates Fox owns the film rights. Also, what the guy you cited said doesn't factually mean he's correct since if it appears it's quite obvious that the source can be credible contrary to yours. Saying Fox owns the film rights to F4 is like saying that 9/11 is an inside job. Neither are true nor actually credible and explicit since we all know it happened in those situations. You cannot deny the fact Constantin is listed in this and you can't cite anything factually that it is not involved in the F4 film rights anymore. I gave you the list, you gave the one that is already refuted and factually wrong in this situation since it's based off a strong belief rather than a fact. It's no different than saying Universal has the film rights to the Hulk when it's clear only Universal owns the distribution rights and Disney owns the film rights to the green character.Does Marvel Not Own the Rights to Make an Incredible Hulk Film?, [2], and [3]

This is seriously a non-issue that you're making it as big deal as much as political opinions. Don't say the sources are invalid just because YOU think so. Again, doing so is gonna get your banned. Stop it. You're wrong on the Hulk one and you're also wrong on the F4 rights. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

←HuffingtonPost has the IH movie post for the movie clearly indicates (when enlarged) MVL Film Finance, LLC, the Marvel Studios finance facility subsidiary, as copyright holder not Universal. Spshu (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing this is some kind of joke since you're just nitpicking poor examples. That company you mentioned is a research and financial investor of Marvel Studios, that's it. Marvel Studios doesn't own the copyright to TIH, so what you're saying really isn't how it works, which makes you really clueless. Learn the difference between film and distribution rights. If a studio distributes a movie whether if they produce it or not, it's their movie as a copyright holder and it remains that way unless some other company buys their distribution rights out, as Walt Disney Studios did with the Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America movies from Paramount.[4] The Incredible Hulk isn't included in the deal so it stays with Universal Studios as the sole copyright holder (as the links I gave you says otherwise) whether they have the film rights or not. Similarly, even after the Lucasfilm purchase, 20th Century Fox owns the permanent rights to Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope since they financed and co-produced with Lucasfilm for the movie, whereas the rest of the Star Wars films distributed by Fox were made by Lucasfilm and Lucasfilm only, meaning Disney has to wait until May 2020 to snatch all rights to the New Hope sequels and prequels made by Fox except Episode 4 (all that would be voided if Disney fully merges with Fox).See Page 13 of the Disney financial report Paramount keeps the distribution rights to the four Indiana Jones movies while Disney retains the future full rights to the any Indiana Jones beyond Crystal Skull.[5] XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You have not learn the difference between production and distribution right, the split in film rights are not "film and distribution" rights. MVL Film Finance, LLC is not "a research and financial investor of Marvel Studios". As sourced in the Marvel Studios article it is one of the Marvel Studios subsidiaries set up to be able to borrow against movie rights. You still have not answer why Universal as you claim should be is not the copyright holder. None of the article say any thing about copyrights, but logically the copyright goes to the production rights holder as author (whether or not they contract production out) not the distribution right holder. All these article about distribution do not address copyrights. If Fox held the copyright to Star Wars due to ownership of the distribution right then Lucasfilms could not have have produced the sequel trilogy or the Clone War feature film with out Fox's permission then put the distribution rights up for bid. Although Fox won them while WB bid and won on Star Wars: The Clone War movie.

So let us look at the Forbes article: "Marvel regained the film production rights to the Hulk in 2005, after Universal's license of the character lapsed due to failure to enter production on a sequel to 2003's Ang Lee film Hulk." "But despite obtaining the cinematic rights to make Hulk movies, Marvel did not obtain distribution rights. Universal held those rights, and today I can confirm the exact situation is that Universal currently retains the right of first refusal to distribute any Hulk films in the future. If for some reason Universal chose to forgo distribution, then Disney would immediately pick up the distribution rights for the Hulk movie. So Universal has no claim at all to the production rights, and their distribution rights are dependent on exercising their option, which remains in full effect at the moment."

If distribution rights granted copyrights (authorship) and the ultimate rights to the film, the the above scenario could not happen. If Universal has the copyrights to Hulk films then Marvel Studios could not make a film with out permission of Universal thus could not follow the Forbes contributor Mark Hughes's (a screenwriter for film & TV) scenario (at the end of the quote) where Universal declines distribution thus Disney Studio could distribute the Incredible Hulk sequel film. Spshu (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you're just assuming regardless of the facts laid above in everything including Star Wars and what not. The articles are crystal clear and you're wasting my time assuming things YOU think it does, even though it doesn't. You might as well believe 9/11 is an inside job. Regarding Universal and Disney ownership of Hulk, that alone fails to demonstrate your explicit understanding of the film and distribution rights and the copyright goes to depends on who owns it. It's a specific thing, not the whole thing. It's called "right of first refusal" and you don't really understand that. Also, you already backed up my point when you bold out the statements you supposedly used against my arguments, Universal owns the distribution rights to the solo Hulk movie, but Disney owns the production rights, that's the major critical differences between film and distribution rights. Should Universal refuse to distribute, then Disney would get a chance to, but until that happens, Universal continues to own the distribution rights to TIH and any future solo Hulk movies. You laid out a statement, which helps backs up my point. So once again, this argument is crystal clear as it is which you have really failed to demonstrate my argument is wrong. Even if Universal does give up the distribution rights to any future Hulk movies, the copyright of TIH remains with Universal forever unless Disney can buy them out.

The entire argument of yours is conjuncture and wasteful and not based on facts, considering you're still assume that all film and distribution rights are the same, and once again, you're just nitpicking things as usual and not fully grasp how the film industry wrks. You assume that I don't know yet you have astonishingly have failed to tell the notable difference not just the articles, but also yours as well. You have responded by nitpicking arguments like it's a fact when it can't be used as a justification for the actual point. You're wasting my time with this, everything you said is nothing and is more nitpicking and filed with nothing but plot-holes and reeks of desperation. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not assuming I am quoting one of the article that refute your position then restated them. So, you are claiming Mark Hudges doesn't know about film rights. This statement of yours clearly indicated that I do know as this is again what Hughes said: "Should Universal refuse to distribute, then Disney would get a chance to, but until that happens, Universal continues to own the distribution rights to TIH and any future solo Hulk movies." So, you just proved your statement is wrong: "Holy Cow man, Universal is already sourced to be the copyright holder of the Incredible Hulk movie since THEY distribute a movie (cite the fact it doesn't),..." " Marvel Studios doesn't own the copyright to TIH, ..." And this whopper after the movie copyright was revealed: "The Incredible Hulk isn't included in the deal so it stays with Universal Studios as the sole copyright holder " The German movie poster copyright clearly shows that one of the Marvel Studio's film slate financing subsidiary has the copyright to IH, which according to you should be Universal. You directly refute that Marvel Studios could not make a film with out Universal's permission by restating what Mark Hudges stated then I paraphrased. So, you not have any ground to stand on. Spshu (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Marvel Entertainment Marvel Productions Marvel Studios MVL Film Finance LLC --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)