RUMOR: Is Marvel Canceling Fantastic Four Comics to Hurt Fox's New Movie?

Trishbot

New member
May 10, 2011
1,318
0
0
I have noticed a distinct lack of X-men toys lately... While Captain America and Iron Man still have their own aisle.

If it helps get Fantastic Four back to Marvel faster, I'm all for it. Dr. Doom is a villain worthy of the Avengers.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
well, that sounds incredibly stupid. It's not going to stop the movie from getting attention; the movies actually help the comics, not the other way around. Seems Marvel is making itself out to be a lot more influential than it really is.
 

Zorg Machine

New member
Jul 28, 2008
1,304
0
0
Dead Century said:
Sanunes said:
Uh. Okay? Did you read what I wrote? I'm talking about using the Strucker twins, who are different characters from Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Baron Von Strucker is their father. Which would easily avoid the Magneto issue. Plus, you don't even have to call Swordsman or Andrea, mutants(because they aren't really, Arnim Zola simply experimented on them) just say they're 'genetically enhanced' or 'bio-engineered'.
Swordsman and Andrea are currently owned by Fox as they are mutants and it doesn't matter if you don't call them mutants if they have the same backstory. Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are owned by Marvel as they are avengers but they can't be named as Magneto's children as he is still owned by Fox.

The Strucker twins are owned by Fox as are their backstories and it doesn't matter if you call them mutants or not.
 

ExtraDebit

New member
Jul 16, 2011
533
0
0
Trishbot said:
I have noticed a distinct lack of X-men toys lately... While Captain America and Iron Man still have their own aisle.

If it helps get Fantastic Four back to Marvel faster, I'm all for it. Dr. Doom is a villain worthy of the Avengers.
Not only Dr.Doom, alot of the characters in FF are awesome in avengers and other marvel movies, silver surfer, galactus, Namor....just to name a few.

However, Magneto will remain my all time favorite villain, I hope the xmen franchise can return to marvel in my life time.
 

Foolery

No.
Jun 5, 2013
1,714
0
0
Zorg Machine said:
Dead Century said:
Sanunes said:
Uh. Okay? Did you read what I wrote? I'm talking about using the Strucker twins, who are different characters from Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Baron Von Strucker is their father. Which would easily avoid the Magneto issue. Plus, you don't even have to call Swordsman or Andrea, mutants(because they aren't really, Arnim Zola simply experimented on them) just say they're 'genetically enhanced' or 'bio-engineered'.
Swordsman and Andrea are currently owned by Fox as they are mutants and it doesn't matter if you don't call them mutants if they have the same backstory. Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are owned by Marvel as they are avengers but they can't be named as Magneto's children as he is still owned by Fox.

The Strucker twins are owned by Fox as are their backstories and it doesn't matter if you call them mutants or not.
Oh. I'm sorry. Wasn't aware of that. Damn. Well, that really does make it a bit difficult. Maybe Marvel and Joss Whedon should have just gone with Black Panther or whomever for new Avengers members in Age of Ultron. Would probably be easier than having write around character licensing issues.
 

Trishbot

New member
May 10, 2011
1,318
0
0
Zorg Machine said:
Dead Century said:
Sanunes said:
Uh. Okay? Did you read what I wrote? I'm talking about using the Strucker twins, who are different characters from Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Baron Von Strucker is their father. Which would easily avoid the Magneto issue. Plus, you don't even have to call Swordsman or Andrea, mutants(because they aren't really, Arnim Zola simply experimented on them) just say they're 'genetically enhanced' or 'bio-engineered'.
Swordsman and Andrea are currently owned by Fox as they are mutants and it doesn't matter if you don't call them mutants if they have the same backstory. Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are owned by Marvel as they are avengers but they can't be named as Magneto's children as he is still owned by Fox.

The Strucker twins are owned by Fox as are their backstories and it doesn't matter if you call them mutants or not.
You can always CHANGE backstories. I mean, Thor's background in the movies is entirely different from the comics.

Also, is Quicksilver called Magneto's son in Days of Future Past either? I hear it's sort of implied, but not directly stated.

Frankly, they'd do better to pump up Polaris as Magneto's daughter. She's an actual X-men character...
 

BraveSirRobin

New member
Mar 17, 2010
82
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
Really? I just got finished watching Days of Future Past with my friends, and the one thing we pretty much all agreed on was that the movie was horrendously boring. Other than the Quicksilver scene and the scene where
everyone gets ganked by the sentinels
it was pretty much a big snooze fest. It pretty much cemented in my head the notion that I would rather never see another X-Men movie made again than let Fox have another go at one.
Honestly I feel like what really killed it for me was that regardless of how cool some of the scenes were the simple fact that
literally nothing that happened in the future mattered, except to keep Wolverine in the past. Honestly I would have enjoyed it a hell of a lot more if they simply sent him back because it felt like ~30% of the movie was trying to build suspense out of nothing in order to shoehorn the classic x-men actors in. It's really hard to take major dramatic death scenes seriously when everything that just happened will be literally unmade 10 minutes down the line.

Also the almost paint by numbers story of 1) get the band back together, 2) Try to stop [insert plot point here], 3) Moment where everything seems lost, 4) New crazier plan, 5) YAY! it worked out in the end.

Admittedly that Quicksilver scene was fantastic though.
 

MCerberus

New member
Jun 26, 2013
1,168
0
0
Marvel: Seriously, your FF movies suck. Really, really suck. Give us back the rights before you completely crash the IP
Fox: Yah, what are you going to do about it?
Marvel: Challenge accepted
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Aiddon said:
well, that sounds incredibly stupid. It's not going to stop the movie from getting attention; the movies actually help the comics, not the other way around. Seems Marvel is making itself out to be a lot more influential than it really is.
Tell that to Hellblazer fans. Do they flock to Darth Keanu's doorstep or do they prefer the smarmy blonde badass? That much goes without saying. See, how good a movie is from a comic book is based upon rule of cool and accuracy to the content. If it's cool enough, it goes through. If it's accurate enough, it goes though. If it does both of these, it's super-win. If ir fails in one of theses, it's mediocre. If it fails in both of these, it's an absolute flop. Do any or all of the Avenger movies have the right stuff? Absolutely. Maybe not the Hulk, so much, but they made up for it later. What about Fantastic Four? Well, I didn't go see them, but I understand that 'not received well' was an understatement. So really, who has the better grasp of the material here? And on that basis, who REALLY will rabid comic book fans flock to?
 

BoredRolePlayer

New member
Nov 9, 2010
727
0
0
Uriel_Hayabusa said:
I don't read many comics and don't follow the industry so I'm an outsider looking in when it comes to stuff like this. That being said, I wonder: what is up with this Quicksilver character? So, Marvel isn't allowed to use characters in their movies that Fox still has the rights to? Yet both Marvel and Fox have a Quicksilver, but the MCU's isn't a mutant so it's okay or something?*

"COMICS ARE WEIRD" indeed....

*That "He's no mutant" explanation is something I saw on another forum so I don't know if it's accurate.
It's because Quick Silver and Scarlet which were so deeply tied to events in the Avengers that Marvel can use it. BUT from what I understand they can not use the fact they are mutants as a back ground. So you can't say Magnito was their father or how they worked for the Brotherhood of Mutants.
 

Chaos Isaac

New member
Jun 27, 2013
609
0
0
MrBaskerville said:
It's a bit of a clusterfuck, but i will admit that i prefer what Fox is doing with X-Men right now, than what Marvel is doing with their movies. Days of Future Past reminded me how much fun superhero movies can be so obviously i wouldn't want Marvel to reclaim X-Men (Would probably also be a mess if it was included in the Marvel canon thingy), but i can see why they are angry. I don't know much about comics, but i do know that Fantastic Four and Xmen (and Spiderman) are a pretty big part of Marvels image (From a mainstream perspective).
Really? I thought Captain America 2 was way more entertaining and fun. Actually, all the Marvel films try to have fun and levity in their movies to a good degree. I mean, Thor 2 might have been a bore but I remember a lot of the joke moments.
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
Spot1990 said:
What's more likely, Fantastic Four comics boosting ticket sales for the movie or, if the movie is good, it boosting comic sales? Because I think Marvel's logic is a bit backwards here.
Backward logic is often the go-to logic for a lot of people unfortunately. It's very possible that Marvel is so ticked at Fox that they are willing to shoot themselves in the foot if they think it will hurt Fox.

Trishbot said:
Also, is Quicksilver called Magneto's son in Days of Future Past either? I hear it's sort of implied, but not directly stated.

Frankly, they'd do better to pump up Polaris as Magneto's daughter. She's an actual X-men character...
It is heavily implied, but it happens so fast and if you don't already know that Quicksilver is Magneto's son there's a very good chance you'll miss it. It's literally one line and then Magneto makes a face for half a second and then it's gone. I caught it and thought it was amusing, but I think a good deal of people in my theater missed it because it was dead silent.
 

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
Chaos Isaac said:
MrBaskerville said:
It's a bit of a clusterfuck, but i will admit that i prefer what Fox is doing with X-Men right now, than what Marvel is doing with their movies. Days of Future Past reminded me how much fun superhero movies can be so obviously i wouldn't want Marvel to reclaim X-Men (Would probably also be a mess if it was included in the Marvel canon thingy), but i can see why they are angry. I don't know much about comics, but i do know that Fantastic Four and Xmen (and Spiderman) are a pretty big part of Marvels image (From a mainstream perspective).
Really? I thought Captain America 2 was way more entertaining and fun. Actually, all the Marvel films try to have fun and levity in their movies to a good degree. I mean, Thor 2 might have been a bore but I remember a lot of the joke moments.
Captain America 2 is one of the ones i haven't seen that i really want to see. It's not that they don't have their fun moments, it's just that i think most of them have been a bit messy storywise, especially Thor 2 and Iron Man 2, while The Avengers imo tries so hard to be fun that it forgets to have an engaging story. Future Past is the first in a while where i felt it had a good balance of story, characters and entertainment. Haven't seen any superhero movie as fun since X-Men 2, Spiderman 2 or maybe Iron Man 1. Just my personal opinion obviously.

It didn't feel like a mashup of 7 different scripts like First Class, Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 did, and that was kinda refreshing.
 

Phil the Nervous

New member
Jun 1, 2014
106
0
0
The other question would be "Why keep them around? Whats the draw? Age? The family dynamic? Marvel has a better outlet for unusual ideas in Guardians, better scientists in Peter and Tony, and the perfect family dynamic makes the series feel like a sixties sitcom The Fantastic four is good as part of a whole. Reed is amazing as an (evil) supporting character, but the series just doesn't stand up well on its own.
 

Rossco64

New member
Apr 14, 2009
173
0
0
And this doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Fantastic Four sales have been really low the last couple of years why?
 

UltimatheChosen

New member
Mar 6, 2009
1,007
0
0
FalloutJack said:
Aiddon said:
well, that sounds incredibly stupid. It's not going to stop the movie from getting attention; the movies actually help the comics, not the other way around. Seems Marvel is making itself out to be a lot more influential than it really is.
Tell that to Hellblazer fans. Do they flock to Darth Keanu's doorstep or do they prefer the smarmy blonde badass? That much goes without saying. See, how good a movie is from a comic book is based upon rule of cool and accuracy to the content. If it's cool enough, it goes through. If it's accurate enough, it goes though. If it does both of these, it's super-win. If ir fails in one of theses, it's mediocre. If it fails in both of these, it's an absolute flop. Do any or all of the Avenger movies have the right stuff? Absolutely. Maybe not the Hulk, so much, but they made up for it later. What about Fantastic Four? Well, I didn't go see them, but I understand that 'not received well' was an understatement. So really, who has the better grasp of the material here? And on that basis, who REALLY will rabid comic book fans flock to?
Hellblazer is a different situation, because (for the most part) the only people that are familiar with the character are the ones that have read the comics.

By contrast, the Fantastic Four are known even to people that don't read comics. If you cancel their series, it doesn't affect the movies at all. The comic fans are probably gonna see it anyways, and the non-comic fans aren't even going to know that the series was cancelled in the first place.

Which is why I doubt that Marvel is cancelling the series to hurt the movie. Not only would it be absurdly spiteful, it would also be ineffective.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
UltimatheChosen said:
because (for the most part) the only people that are familiar with the character are the ones that have read the comics.

By contrast, the Fantastic Four are known even to people that don't read comics. If you cancel their series, it doesn't affect the movies at all. The comic fans are probably gonna see it anyways, and the non-comic fans aren't even going to know that the series was cancelled in the first place.

Which is why I doubt that Marvel is cancelling the series to hurt the movie. Not only would it be absurdly spiteful, it would also be ineffective.
What? After two shitty movies? Not nearly as much as you're thinking. Reed Richards Is Useless, indeed.
 

SeeDarkly_Xero

New member
Jan 24, 2014
102
0
0
Solicitation from the latest F4 book that began in February:
FANTASTIC FOUR #1
Written by James Robinson, art and cover by Leonard Kirk, variant covers by Jerome Opena, Alex Ross, Skottie Young, Katie Cook.
"The Fall Of The Fantastic Four" Part 1. The world's greatest comics magazine begins anew with Marvel's First Family, the Fantastic Four! But as the brilliant Mr. Fantastic, the compassionate Invisible Woman, the ever lovin' Thing & the hot-headed Human Torch embark on a strange mission, they aren't met with new beginnings, but an untimely end! As the family of cosmic explorers head towards their darkest hour, who could possibly be behind their downfall? And how is one of their oldest enemies, the sadistic dragon known as Fing-Fang-Foom involved? Prepare for the fantastic!

Sales on the book so far?
#1 = Rank 7 (outranking all "X" titles, except Wolverine's new solo book)
#2 = Rank 44 (below all "X" titles except "Force" & "Factor", outranking Capt. America by 14 {pre-film})
#3 = Rank 60 (below all "X" titles except "Force" & "Factor", outranking Capt. America by one {post-film})

Solicitations reveal the "Fall of" story will wrap before the title does... but only up until August and three books leading up to then appear to be tie-ins to the current Original Sin event.

With all that in mind, it seems to me they have intended the idea of FF not being around for the 75th for a while. And they can keep them out of sight in a lot of legitimate ways. If the reasoning is indeed about the movie... well... let's think about that for a moment from a different perspective:

The Marvel Ultimate universe killed Peter Parker off and created a new Spider-Man with Miles Morales (if you don't know how huge this was and why, Google him.)
In the 616 prime universe, they "killed" Peter Parker (in mind) and implanted Otto Octavius in the body of Spider-Man.
All this has happened coincidentally with the new "Amazing" (INO) films underway and both storylines dynamically differentiated themselves from anything you might see in the films.
HOWEVER - They brought BOTH Peter Parkers back just before the the launch of the Amazing 2 film.

By that model, is it really such a surprise that they may be intending a similar strategy with the F4 to boost book sales? I mean, not that the Spider-titles ever really needed the boost because they consistently perform well for Marvel... but the F4 title could certainly use it.

In the end, I think it's less about "screw you Fox" (though what Fox did with Quicksilver was by far a bigger dick move and I have yet to be convinced that DoFP gained anything significant from his inclusion) and more about a long game to figure out how Marvel can best make money from their own F4 product.
If it even marginally screws Fox in the process... well in my opinion they kind of deserve it... but I'm sure they'll just do more damage to themselves than Marvel would with this action.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
BoredRolePlayer said:
Uriel_Hayabusa said:
I don't read many comics and don't follow the industry so I'm an outsider looking in when it comes to stuff like this. That being said, I wonder: what is up with this Quicksilver character? So, Marvel isn't allowed to use characters in their movies that Fox still has the rights to? Yet both Marvel and Fox have a Quicksilver, but the MCU's isn't a mutant so it's okay or something?*

"COMICS ARE WEIRD" indeed....

*That "He's no mutant" explanation is something I saw on another forum so I don't know if it's accurate.
It's because Quick Silver and Scarlet which were so deeply tied to events in the Avengers that Marvel can use it. BUT from what I understand they can not use the fact they are mutants as a back ground. So you can't say Magnito was their father or how they worked for the Brotherhood of Mutants.
They could go with an off hand, indirect mention of something like, "Our dad's kind of a jerk but he is always trying to do what is best for "our people".
 

teebeeohh

New member
Jun 17, 2009
2,896
0
0
RealRT said:
teebeeohh said:
if this is true i will assume that all the stupid shit happening in spider-man is an attempt to hurt sony and not just simple stupidity.
What stupid shit? I follow Spider-Man comics since 2013 Superior Spider-Man run and it was awesome.
spider-man makes a deal with the devil to save his aunt from a gunshot wound so deadly nobody in the whole marvel universe can do anything about it. the reason being that the editors thought stable relationships are boring and this seemed to them the best way to break up him and MJ.