As you may know, I'm a loooooong time Fantastic Four fan. I had my first letter printed in that comic back in 1988, and I ran the FFPlaza.com website for over a decade. I've had Marvel writers and editors ask me for assistance in making sure they had obscure details correct, and I've gotten a few official credits because of that. I've gotten more than a couple writing assignments precisely because of my interest in the FF.
Which I use as a preface to say that I am a big fan of the FF. I think it's great concept and, when written well, makes for some incredible stories.
But I've seen a few others recently lament how the FF are being treated by Marvel's marketing these days. How they're not well represented in crossovers, how they're not prominently featured (if they're indeed featured at all) in general merchandise, and -- the most recent offense -- that they're barely mentioned in Marvel's 75th Anniversary magazine. Some of the FF fans I know are railing against this treatment, and consider it more than a slight against the team, especially in light of the new movie coming out next year.
Because Marvel, at the moment, has a more strategic plan for the FF. One that involves the FF movie not doing so well. At least, compared to the various Avengers properties.
Do you know why the aliens in The Avengers were Chitauri and not Skrulls? Because part of the Fantastic Four license that Fox has includes a variety of FF villains like Dr. Doom, Galactus and the Skrulls. Legally, Marvel Studios can't use Skrulls. And they won't be able to use Skrulls until Fox's option to extending the license runs its course. But it won't run its course if Fox continues to produce Fantastic Four films.
Most licensing contracts establish a time limit on their usefulness. You can license a character for a certain period of time, and if you do nothing with that character in that timeframe, the contract expires. But if you do do something, you're often able to take advantage of a clause that says you're free to renew the license for a period of years past the original expiration. This is basically a way for the property owners to ensure that they're not losing potential income; if a licensee does nothing with the character, the licensor is freed up to take the character to someone else who will earn some money from it.
So Marvel's gambit here is to not help promote the characters that are licensed by another company. The hope, I think, is that, with fewer marketing efforts put towards an FF film, it will not be as successful a movie for Fox. If it's not a successful movie -- or at least not as successful as they'd like compared to other films starring Marvel characters -- Fox will eventually let the license expire rather than renew it. And once it expires, the rights would revert back to Marvel and the FF could be wrapped into the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
It's not about using Chitauri instead of Skrulls. That's a minor point, really. It's about the broad license for the Fantastic Four and all the ancillary characters that are detailed in that contract: the FF themselves, Galactus, Silver Surfer, Mole Man... Is it a big deal if Frankie Raye doesn't make a cameo in the next Guardians of the Galaxy movie? No. But Marvel, I'm sure, does not want to limit themselves any more than is necessary, and would no doubt prefer to bring all of their characters back under one licensing roof. So they're, quite frankly, hoping the next FF movie does poorly precisely so they can hit that longer-term, strategic goal.
"That's very clever, but if you're so smart, how come they're not doing that with Spider-Man too?"
That's a little trickier for Marvel because that particular character has been so closely associated with the Marvel brand for so long. Marvel is Spider-Man is Marvel. They can't really ignore Spider-Man in the same way. But if you'll notice, Marvel has spent a lot of time trying to bring the comics versions of their characters closer to their cinematic counterparts... but only for the characters Marvel Studios can use. They bent over backwards to make sure the Nick Fury in Marvel comics looks like Samuel L. Jackson, but there's been zero effort to even change Spider-Man's costume to more closely resemble Andrew Garfield's. So while they can't exactly dismiss their corporate mascot of the past half-century, they're not going to contribute to someone else's cinematic success with the character.
So, ultimately, that's why there's been seemingly so little love for the Fantastic Four at Marvel. It's part of a larger strategy to bring their movie versions back in house. And with the raging success they've had with the Avengers, they don't even have to concern themselves with not having a central team to rally their comic stories and crossover events around.
- ► 2016 (306)
- ► 2015 (253)
- On History: Versus Nostalgia
- On Business: Kickin' It Old School
- On Strips: Foxy Grandpa
- On -isms: Headliners?
- On History: Comic Book Protection Cover System
- On Business: The Future of the Niche
- On Strips: The 1995 Comics Umbrella(s)
- On -isms: Why It Matters
- On History: Warka Vase Still a Question Mark
- On Business: Why the FF Aren't Important Right Now...
- On Strips: Bringing Up Father
- On -isms: Transchizophrenic
- On History: Comic Strip Continuity
- On Business: RSS Question
- On Strips: How To Draw 50 Cartoons
- On -isms: But It Was a Different Time
- On History: Carol Day
- ▼ September (21)
- ► 2013 (342)
- ► 2012 (372)
- ► 2011 (367)
- ► 2010 (382)
- ► 2009 (365)
- ► 2008 (358)
- ► 2007 (382)