Marvel Comics, in its haste to get its properties on the big screen, made a lot of ”use them or lose them” deals regarding the rights, meaning that the film studios would keep the rights as long as they kept making films featuring the Marvel characters. This was good at first because it resulted in a lot of great films by top name directors. But now that Marvel is owned by Disney, a company that knows a thing or two about films, you get the sense that the powers that be wish that some of these properties will come back into the fold.

Fox owns the rights to the X-Men and just about all of Marvel’s mutants, the Fantastic Four and Daredevil. The studio is keeping a stranglehold on the lucrative X-Men rights, always having at least one X-film in development at all times. However, Deadline reports that there has been some action on the Daredevil and Fantastic Four fronts, news that might result in one of the properties reverting back to Marvel.

Deadline states that Chronicle director Josh Trank has been officially named by Fox as helming the Fantastic Four reboot. The FF reboot is on the fast track, meaning that it is expected to be the next Marvel film to come from the studio after The Wolverine and Matthew Vaughn’s X-Men: First Class sequel and it will be the much in demand Trank’s next film. It has been five years since 2007′s Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, and while the FF were a financial success for Fox, it was far from a success with the critics. Hopefully, this reboot will address that.

2003′s Daredevil was a similar box-office success yet a critical disappointment, and Fox has been looking to reboot that franchise as well. Since we are approaching ten years since that film came out (time flies, doesn’t it?), if Fox doesn’t act soon, the rights to Ol’ Hornhead will revert back to Marvel. And a recent development might mean that we could see Daredevil’s lawyer alter ego Matt Murdock representing Mark Ruffalo’s Bruce Banner or Robert Downey Jr’s Tony Stark in the near future.

David Slade has dropped out of the reboot over time constraints. Fox needs the new Daredevil film to start production in the fall to avoid the rights going back to Marvel and Slade, who is directing the pilot for NBC’s Hannibal series, cannot find time in his schedule to work within Fox’s. There is a script that the studio likes and is ready to go, but Fox needs to find a new director that is ready to get started quickly and get a project up and running by the times the leaves turn. It could happen, but considering that Fox chose Brett Ratner as a last-minute replacement for Bryan Singer and Matthew Vaughn on X-Men: The Last Stand, I don’t trust Fox’s judgement on finding replacement directors who can get a project up and running quickly. It might be better to just let Marvel take over.

If Latino Review is correct, a Marvel superhero’s long road to the cineplex will end in 2014, and those of us waiting for Ant-Man will have to wait a little bit longer. Because the website is quoting four sources (FOUR!) that say the mystery Marvel film that will come in 2014 with star Black Panther.

Black Panther was a character created in 1966 by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in Fantastic Four #52. His real name was T’Challa and was a potentate in the fictional African nation of Wakanda who earned the right to wield a sacred “Panther Totem” that gave him the strength, agility and senses of the cat the item was named after. While based in Africa, he made many trips to America and would eventually marry X-Men member Storm.

These facts, that Black Panther first appeared in Fantastic Four and married a member of the X-Men, that the rights to the character would belong to FOX, who holds the rights to all the anciliary FF andf X-Men characters. But Black Panther’s rights have been free-standing for a long time before either of those franchises.

Talk of a Black Panther film began way back in 1992 as a vehicle for Wesley Snipes. The film became a pet project for Snipes, who would express his hopes start filming the adaptation in numerous interviews for the years that would follow. But the project had a number of false starts over the last 20 years, to the point that it looks like Snipes has aged himself out of the role.

Marvel stated in 2007 that Black Panther was one of the ten properties that it would develop in its distribution partnership with Paramount. In early 2011, Marvel commissioned a Black Panther script from Mark Bailey. And a quick reference to the character appears in IRON MAN 2 on a SHIELD monitor listing superpowered individuals around the world.

Again, this is just a rumor. We probably won’t know anything definite until the San Diego Comic Con. But as it stands right now, I am conflicted about this announcement. I have been a long-time fan of Black Panther through his involvement in the Avengers, and having an African hero would make a strike for diversity in the superhero film landscape. But I can’t help be disappointed that Edgar Wright’s Ant-Man isn’t ready to go yet, and not capitalizing on the strong buzz around some of the characters from The Avengers is a big mistake, especially Hulk, who could be a tentpole franchise for Marvel if they build on what Whedon did in that film.

1. Green Lantern (Warner Brothers, 3,816 Theaters, 105 Minutes, Rated PG-13): Once upon a time, DC Comics held a monopoly on the comic book movie. Between the Superman and Batman franchises, DC was being well represented on the silver screen. Marvel was relegated to the B-move and direct-to-video market.

But those franchises became cases of diminishing returns as the filmmakers strayed away from what made the originals a success and move towards Richard Pryor as co-stars and nipples on Bat-suits. Marvel took a more active role in the production of their films, and we get resounding successes such as X-Men, Spider-Man and Iron Man. DC was forced to play catch up.

They took a step in the right direction when rebooting the Bat franchise with Batman Begins. It followed the same pattern as the Marvel films–stay true to the comic book roots while molding it into an exciting film. Things looked positive.

Then Jonah Hex came out, and it showed the same kind of studio think that caused the Superman and Batman franchises to fail. The filmmakers had no idea what made the comic book character so good, and they fiddled with it until the film was just horrible.

This brings us to Green Lantern. I always thought that this would be a comic character that, if done right, could establish DC as a powerhouse in the comic movie genre. The concept is equal parts Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Top Gun. It would be hard to screw up.

I reviewed the script and found it had the potential to be a quality film. Then I saw the jokey first round of ads for the film and felt a knot in my stomach. Jokes were added that weren’t in the script, and when the studio ads humor to a DC movie, it kills it.

The next round of ads seemed to be more on track with what I originally expected, so I started feeling good about it. Then I saw that the film is rated 22% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes and I felt discouraged again.

I don’t know what to expect. But I know DC is pinning their hopes on this film to jump start a Marvel-like dominance of the movie theaters (a sequel is already in the works). But if they drop the ball, it could doom any DC film not being overseen by Christopher Nolan from ever getting made. And if they screw this film up, that would be for the best.

2. Mr. Popper’s Penguins (Fox, 3,338 Theaters, 95 Minutes, Rated PG): Having any attempt at doing dramatic work met with lukewarm response, Jim Carrey is in an interesting stage of his career as a film comedian. He has grown out of being the “Village Idiot” type of roles he played in Ace Ventura and Dumb and Dumber. He has grown out of the immature man-child roles he played in Liar Liar and Bruce Almighty. Now he is consigned to the role of the neglectful father who only realizes the value of family after being reminded of it as his life undergoes an unorthodox upheaval.

That unorthodox upheaval comes in the form of six penguins sent to him by his father. They force him to not pay so much attention to work, which allows his family to enter into his life.

Formulaic family entertainment to be sure, but, depending on what your tolerance for Carrey’s earlier work is, it might come as an improvement.

1. Toy Story 3 (Disney/Pixar, 4,028 Theaters, 103 Minutes, Rated G): The franchise that started the Pixar empire is back, and, really, how can you not be excited.

Of course, it has been 11 years between installments, so the kids who saw Toy Story 2 are now surly teenagers. But through the magic of home video, new generations of viewers can catch the previous installments and its fan base can constantly replenish itself.

The plot now revolves around the toys being given to a local day care center when their owner, Andy, goes to college. Life at the day care center is not all its cracked up to be, so Woody and Buzz lead the rest of the toys in a jailbreak.

I don’t know if this will be the last installment (although I can’t see how far they can keep going in the story progression), but it will be one you have to go see.

2. Jonah Hex (Warner Brothers, 2,825 Theaters, 80 Minutes, Rated PG-13): This film brings back a old-school brand of filmmaking. It’s where Hollywood takes a property from another medium, thinks it could present it better than how it appeared originally, makes unnecessary changes to try to “improve” it, takes away pretty much all that was good about the original concept and ends up destroying the idea in the minds of millions.

The Jonah Hex of the comic books was a badass. A horrible scarred badass, but a badass nonetheless. A lot of movies have been made about badasses. Heck, Clint Eastwood practically made a career out of them, many of which were westerns. So, you really don’t need bells and whistles to sell the character.

But this film gives us bells and whistles out the wazoo. Hex now has “talking to the dead” powers. His horse has two Gatling Guns on either side of it. His origin, one of the more interesting ones in comics, has been changed to one of petty revenge and a good man punished for doing the right thing. And there is  an anachronistic super weapon to provide the threat.

Now, I straddle the line between comic book fan and film buff enough to know that you do have to make some changes to bring a comic book to the screen. But you have to know what makes the property appealing in the first place. The Spider-Man films know this. Most of the X-Men films knew this. Christopher Nolan’s Batman films know this. The producers of this film doesn’t.

This film will be annihilated by Toy Story 3, so the quality of the film really doesn’t matter. But this explains what DC has such problems adapting its characters to the screen. I hope the new regime at DC Entertainment makes it their priority to correct this kind of thing.

Not that he has enough in development projects of his own to choose from, Robert Rodriguez has been offered the director’s chair for Twentieth Century Fox’s X-Men spinoff Deadpool. According to Playlist, who broke the story, Rodriguez is considering the offer and hasn’t entered in to negotiations with the studio for the job. The offer is being taken as a sign that the studio is happy with the producing job that Rodriguez did for their reboot of the Predator franchise coming next month.

Ryan Reynolds has been attached to the project for a while to star as the title character, a wisecracking super-powered mercenary. Although it is spinning out of last summer’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the screenplay by Zombieland scripters Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick reportedly ignores the events of that film. Would that we all could.

Personally, I think that Rodriguez will pass. He already turned down the studio when they recently offered him directorial duties on their Planet Of The Apes reboot Caeser. Currently, the director will be shooting Spy Kids 4: Armageddon this summer and is looking at starting up his long postponed science-fiction thriller Nervewrackers after that.

If this happens, it could make a lot of people really happy and have a lot of people complaining.

Deadline New York, the East Coast version of Deadline Hollywood gossip blog, is reporting that Joss Whedon is in “final negotiations” to direct the big screen adaptation of The Avengers comic book.

The film version is the ipso facto sequel to all of Marvel’s films from the last two years and the ones yet to come before The Avengers’ May 4, 2012 release date. Many of the stars of Marvel’s slate of films, including Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans, are rumored to have signed on to reprise their roles in the team-up film.

Whedon has a relationship with Marvel as a comic book writer, yet not on any of the Avengers‘  titles. He has written Astonishing X-Men and Runaways for the comic book company. Plots from his X-men comic book made it into X-Men: The Last Stand and he did an uncredited rewrite on the first X-Men film.

His past experience on such genre-friendly TV shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly and Dollhouse show his ability to juggle many interesting characters and be able to give them moments to shine. But this is usually chalked up to his writing ability, not his skill as a director. Also, those last two projects were cult hits yet ratings failures and his only film directing experience, the 2005 Firefly spin-off, Serenity, was a box office bomb. So while his legion of fans might be giddy with excitement, there is cause for concern.

We continue our look back at the cinematic decade that has just passed with a look at what has become the fastest growing genre of film, the comic book adaptation.

As the 1990s came to a close, things looked grim for the comic book movie. The Batman franchise had been hammered into the ground under the campy hand of Joel Schumacher. The Superman franchise was a distant memory. A successful comic book adaptation was few and far between, usually properties that did fit the typical superhero style, like the morbid revenge fantasy, The Crow, the sci-fi/ comedy, Men in Black, and the horror/ action film Blade. However, two long in development comic properties made their debut in the next decade and would change the world of comic book movies in particular and films in general forever.

Marvel first sold the rights to X-Men and Spider-Man to film studios in the 1980s. Their time spent in development hell is the stuff of legend. A literal who’s who of Hollywood were connected to either film at one time or another. As a matter of fact, Avatar’s James Cameron was attached to both at various points of their planning. Each made it far into the development pipeline. Each had their studios declare bankruptcy and fall apart right underneath them. But it took the new millennium to actually bring them to the screen.

X-Men came first and comic fans waited for it with breathlessly. They greeted each casting announcement with joy (Patrick Stewart is perfect for Professor X!) and trepidation (Russell Crowe doesn’t want to do Wolverine? They lost that Dougray Scott guy? Who is this Hugh Jackman? An actor known mostly for his performance in stage musicals? Ugh!). The characters were not all that well known amongst the general public as Batman and Superman were, but they were enormously popular with the comic fans. The stakes were high.

A character who was well known by the general public was Spider-Man. He was one of the few characters to come close to becoming part of Americana. He had a long history of cartoons, TV shows, toys and merchandise in its history. There was many a person who never held a comic book in their life who could recite the story of how Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider. The stakes were high.

Both movies pleased the hard core fans. They weren’t slavishly faithful to the original books, but they were faithful to the spirit. They were done by creators with histories of quality film work who treated the subject matter with respect. They applied such outlandish concepts as symbolism and metaphor to the films. They were great films that could be enjoyed by all audiences.  But, most importantly, they were resounding financial successes. They showed the studios that comic book movies could be an untapped goldmine for their studios.

This cause an explosion of comic book adaptations to made each year. Before this decade, if you had four comic book films in any given year, you had a lot. Now, if there are only four, it’s a light year for comic book adaptations. They have replaced the sci-fi set pieces and explosion filled action films as the new summer blockbuster. 2009 was the first year since 2001 to not feature a comic book film as one of the Top 10 Highest Grossing Films of the year (X-Men Origins: Wolverine ranked at #11). 

The increased attention to graphic novels and comic books as source material exposed the diversity of medium as an art form. Not every film adapted had spandex-clad superheroes beating the crap out of each other. Independent comics such as Ghost World and American Splendor made their way to the screen. Thought provoking dramas like History of Violence and Road to Perdition got their start as graphic novels. Many non-comic savvy are shocked when they find out these films came from funny books.

Comic book films went from movies that actors such as Russell Crowe would refuse because they feared acting in one would hurt their careers to actors like Heath Ledger acting his heart out on the screen, giving his all to make a comic book villain live and breathe on the screen–and winning an Oscar for it.

But as the comic book film has gotten respect from those that make films, it is another story from some members of the media. Much like the way comic books are viewed as some how being substandard to the rest of printed matter, comic book films are treated as being inferior to other forms of cinema. It is a case of not seeing the trees for the forest. The broad grouping of comic book movies has caused some critics to not view each film on its merits, but instead treat the entire genre with a blanket condemnation.

I have seen a number of “Enough with the comic book movies” statements in magazines and on websites over the last few years. I am puzzled by this attitude. Do they really find The Dark Knight to be totally devoid of value? Are they really unimpressed by Sin City’s visual style? Does the fact that Road to Perdition came from a graphic novel completely invalidate its excellent acting and directing? Granted, there have been a lot of bad comic book movies in the last ten years. But there has also been a lot of bad non-comic book movies as well. If you are going to condemn comic book films by the worst they have to offer, then you’ll have to invalidate film making as a whole due to the simple fact that Meet the Spartans got made.

But if you consider the last ten years of comic book movie dominance to be a horrible phase the film industry has gone through, I hate to disappoint you. There are over 20 comic book film in various stages of development, with films planned to hit theaters well into 2012. The decade of the comic book movie is going to last for at least another two years. Deal with it.

The inspiration certainly came from the success the Estate of Jerry Siegel experienced in regards to reclaiming the copyright for Superman from DC Comics/Warner Brothers. The timing certainly has a lot to do with Marvel’s purchase by Disney for $4 Billion.

Last week, the heirs of legendary comic artist Jack Kirby sent notices of copyright termination to 45 entities, including Marvel, Disney, Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures, 20th Century Fox, and Paramount Pictures.

Copyright law states that creators or families of said creators can regain copyrights assigned to companies  56 years after first publication.

This means that the Kirby heir’s claims would become active in 2017 for the Fantastic Four, 2018 for the Hulk, and 2019 for the X-Men and Avengers.

The list of movie studios that were sent notices include one interesting entry–Sony Pictures.

Disney was sent one because the now own Marvel. Universal holds the rights to the Hulk, 20th Century Fox holds the rights to the Fantastic Four and X-Men, so their inclusion is understandable. And Paramount has an agreement to distribute Marvel Studios films, so their addition makes sense as well.

Sony, however, holds the rights to Spider-Man, one of the few characters recognized as not being co-created by Kirby. The artist was tapped to work on an early version of the concept that was rumored not to be to Stan Lee’s liking. Lee instead went with artist Steve Ditko on the concept. Perhaps the heirs feel that enough elements of that early story conference survived into the final product that Kirby should be listed as co-creator on that character as well.

This move raises a lot of interesting questions. Stan Lee is recognized as co-creator on many of these properties and he is still alive. Will he sue for his share of the copyright? Has his previous contracts with Marvel included a clause for this circumstance? And if Kirby and Lee have equal rights to the copyright, what happens if the Kirbys don’t allow Marvel use of their copyrights and Lee does?

Another interesting issue would be about the rights to the character Thor. Thor, as you may know, is a character from Norse mythology and therefore in the public domain. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created a version of the mythogical warrior for the Marvel universe. So, can Kirby stake claim to the copyright of the Norse god of thunder or not?

Certain cynics may say that this is a ploy to get a quick settlement from Disney so that it will just go away and the purchase of Marvel will go smoother. After all, you can declare your intention to retain your rights upto 10 years before they become due. That the Kirby heirs could have made their intentions known as early as 2007. Yet at that time, Kirby’s daughter Lisa was working with Marvel to bring one for her father’s unpublished concepts, Jack Kirby’s Galactic Bounty Hunters, to life through Marvel’s Icon imprint.

However, even with the success found by the Siegel Estate in their claims to Superman, this might not be an easy road for the Kirbys, as hinted by this statement from Disney:

“The notices involved are an attempt to terminate rights seven to 10 years from now and involve claims that were fully considered in the acquisition.”

Disney is know as a tenacious defender of the rights to their character, even going so far as suing a series of day care centers that had Disney characters painted on their walls. This could be a long and protracted legal battle for both sides.

Via The New York Times and Los Angeles Times.

More on this story as it develops.

1. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox, 4,099 Theaters, 107 Minutes, Rated PG-13): If this movie came out at any time prior to 2006, there would not be as much concern about it. It could have probably just sailed by into theaters without much scrutiny.

However, X-Men:The Last Stand proved that a can’t miss franchise might actually be able to miss after all. And that put an extra critical eye on this franchise extending film.

As a result, you have people making snarky comments that this should actually be the fourth Wolverine movie rather than the first. You also have people questioning where the story fits in. Of course, it is the origin of Wolverine, but he faces off against a different Sabertooth–decidedly not blond and not monosyllabic–than he faced in the first X-Men film.

He also appears to have a run in with Cyclops, a meeting not mentioned in any of the other films–a fact that drives the comic book fan target audience crazy. In addition, the film seems chock full of fan favorite characters from the comics such as Gambit and Deadpool that seem just shoved in. This is always a bad thing (see Batman and Robin and Spider-Man 3).

Add to that a couple disappointing reviews of the script and a controversy over a leaked bare bones version of the film and you have what could be a disaster. I hope it isn’t, but I’m not optimistic.

 
 
2. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros. (New Line)/ 3,175 Theaters, 100 Minutes, Rated PG-13): Is it too early to appoint Matthew McConaughey the king of the romantic comedy? Basically, that’s all he is doing cinematically right now. Usually playing an overgrown adolescent whose heart must be tamed by a beautiful girl.

This latest entry adds a Dickensian twist as Matthew plays a serial monogamist who is forced to revisit all his past relationships. In the process, he finds his one true love is the one he’s about to let slip away forever. 

3. Battle for Terra (Lionsgate, 1,159 Theaters, 85 Minutes, Rated PG): I have to admit, I know absolutely nothing about this film.

I haven’t seen any ads for it, I’ve read no articles, seen no trailers.

Now, I do have a newborn child, which occupies a lot of my time, but I have seen something for all the other films being released this week. This leads me to believe that Lionsgate is burying this film. Bad Lionsgate, bad.

According to IMDB, this is a computer animated sci-fi tale where the last survivors of Earth try to colonize an inhabited planet. The planet’s inhabitants resist and fighting ensues.  So if that floats your boat, maybe you should check this out.

He is the critically lambasted director known for the Rush Hour trilogy who is credited with single-handedly destroying the X-Men film franchise with his X-Men: The Last Stand.

It is the critically lambasted comic book which many point to as the book that brought on the darkest creative period in American comics.

It might be more than just coincidence that brought Brett Ratner and Youngblood together, it might be some kind of sick and twisted destiny.

Variety is reporting that Indian media conglomerate Reliance Big Entertainment have acquired the rights to the comic property from creator Rob Liefeld for a sum in the “mid six figures” with the indent of having Ratner adapt the property for the big screen.

Youngblood was the first title to come from the fledgling Image Comics group, a corporate identity created by seven superstar artists after they broke with Marvel and DC over rights issues. Created by Liefeld from an unused Teen Titans proposal, the team was a government sanctioned group of superpowered operatives who made the world safe for democracy.

The first issue was the highest selling independent book of all time. It was also one of the worst written, as characterization and exposition were jettisoned to make room for Liefeld’s then popular artistic style.

“Most of the great graphic novels are gone, and ‘Youngblood‘ is one of the few comic books left with tentpole potential,” Ratner was quoted telling Daily Variety. “It was a real personal passion project for me, and a lot of people wanted (‘Youngblood’), but the amazing thing about the guys at Reliance is the speed with which they’re able to move.”

Many genre fans were concerned with Ratner “ruining” their favorite properties. But, in this case, any “ruining” he might do might actually be an improvement.