Talk:Marvel Studios/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Early films distribution rights

"Please be advised that effective 6/30/2013 Marvel has acquired the distribution rights for Marvel Studio’s Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger." Paramount Home Media Distribution press release. “Paramount will continue to honor and service existing distribution commitments. All other distribution activities will be transitioned to Disney over the next several months,” the companies announced. Spshu (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what is listed in the note. Disney purchased the rights, to be distributed by them now instead of Paramount, and since Marvel Studios is a subsidiary, that means that all of the Marvel Studios pictures (except The Incredible Hulk) are under the same distributor. For the quote, while it says Marvel, it should be read as "Marvel has acquired through the purchase by Walt Disney". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That isn't neccessarily so that because Marvel Studios is a Disney Subsidiary that Disney distribution arm would. As Iron Man: Rise of Technovore DTV was done by Marvel Animation under the SH DTV Partners after Disney's acquisition of Marvel but is distributed by Sony (2012-2013). Of course, since it was a somewhat extension of the Superhero Anime Partners and a clear continuation of the Partnership's Marvel Anime property that may have been required.

Marvel Knights Animation now into its "second season" are still distributed for DVD by Shout! Factory.Spshu (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The wording for this note is fine, because it only deals with the films that were produced by Marvel Studios and formerly distributed by Paramount. As the wording stands, I don't think any of these films you are mentioning are part of the deal. Long story short, the wording is fine because it is dealing only with these 4 films (and the note is attached only as such). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am responding to your assumption that "and since Marvel Studios is a subsidiary, that means that all of the Marvel Studios pictures (except The Incredible Hulk) are under the same distributor." Making a response that you shows you don't know what you are agruing doesn't help your position. The wording is not fine since you are making assuptions that you should be making. Paramount indicates the rights are going back to Marvel but expect Disney to fullfill them not they are going to Disney. Spshu (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no assumptions being made by Favre1fan93. The worldwide distribution rights to those four Marvel Studios films are going to Disney. That's a fact proven by all the sources. The Deadline source in particular, says it clearer than day; (e.g "now revert to Disney", "transitioned to Disney"). Nowhere does it say that they were "purchased by Marvel but functionally exercised by Disney" or anything of that sort. That's fabricated wording. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

←CAN YOU NOT READ THAT WAS THE FIRST THING QUOTED. IT IS NOT FABRICATED. Spshu (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you are missing this. The rights are going back to Disney because Marvel is their subsidiary. That's it. The rights were at Paramount originally because Marvel was producing all of their films independently and signed a deal to allow Paramount to be their distributor. Then Disney bought Marvel, buying out Paramount for their two remaining films (The Avengers and Iron Man 3) and Disney became Marvel's distributor. But all these original four films were still allowed to be distributed by Paramount. Now DISNEY has bought these rights. Marvel is not a distributor, so there for, they have no distribution rights. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"DISNEY" means most likely that the writer is not or could not tell which unit. But we have a source that says "MARVEL" got the rights back. As I pointed out else where in the discussion several other Marvel movies are not in any way distributed by Disney (outside of the Disney deal & made after the Disney purchase of Marvel), so I have already debunked "...Disney because Marvel is their subsidiary". Just because Disney owns a company doesn't mean that Disney will use it as Disney didn't always use The Secret Lab, a special effect division, and shut it down instead. I AM MISSING IT BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, AS I POINTED OUT. Marvel can when they own their distribution rights because they can just hire who ever they want to distribution them! That would be like say that they are not a casting firm so they can not hire actors or not an employment firm so they cannot hire any one. Also you are assuming that W.Disney Studios Motion Pictures (WDSMP) has any thing to do with it as the Dateline source: "All of the home entertainment distribution rights previously held by Paramount for Marvel Studios’ Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger now revert to Disney effective June 30th." Do you see theater distribution rights there? NO, but you include WDSMP in the list of Disney units taking them over.

I tracked down the actual press release which includes Marvel Studios as party to the agreement, which isn't need if the rights are going straight from Paramount to Disney Studio divisions. PR: "The Walt Disney Studios, Paramount Pictures and Marvel Studios announced they have reached an agreement under which Disney has acquired all of the distribution rights previously held by Paramount for Marvel Studios’ Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger." So Disney could have transfered money to Marvel, order Marvel to use its money or wrote the Disney-Marvel part of the agreement to reimburse Marvel for their costs to buy back the home distribution rights say for an advance on home sales with rental of rights by Marvel Studios. Another, the intial Paramount Marvel distribution deal was for 10 films in the domestic market, so Marvel still had the international distribution rights which they intend to sell piece meal. So, because they aren't a distribution company Marvel couldn't have done that? Yes, it was Paramount that purchase international rights for five films (perhaps at a modification of the 10 film deal) after Iron Man. Since, "Disney" here means the conglomerate of Disney companies, the PRelease doesn't indicate which Disney company has the distribution rights as two were mentioned "The Walt Disney Studios, ... and Marvel Studios".

So, your concluding statement "Now DISNEY has bought these rights. Marvel is not a distributor, so there for, they have no distribution rights." But "Disney" is vague here could mean Marvel as they were a party of some sort to the purchase agreement. Distribution rights do not depend on being a distributor. Spshu (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at the facts on the table. The following sources (The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Los Angeles Business Journal, Deadline Hollywood, and Business Wire) all say that Disney bought (and were transferred) the distribution rights to Marvel Studios' Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger from Paramount.

Not Marvel. Not Marvel from "orders" by Disney. Not Marvel with Disney's "money". Not Marvel "but functionally exercised by Disney". Not Marvel through Disney. Not vice versa. Just Disney. If you continue to dispute that verified fact, then your argument will be further considered groundless.

The other issue in question is what specific rights Disney bought with their purchase. According to The Wall Street Journal and Business Wire sources, they report exactly that all of the distribution rights were acquired by Disney. All of them. I'm not making that up. Favre1fan93 was not making that up. We are citing it from numerous, verified sources.

According to Wikipedia's own definition of film distribution, in terms of motion pictures, a film's distribution rights vary from the following:

1) Theatrical (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures manages theatrical distribution for the company),

2) Home media (Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment manages the company's home media business),

3) Television broadcasting (Disney-ABC Domestic Television is the company's television distribution and syndication firm),

4) Digital distribution

Since Disney purchased all of the distribution rights to those four Marvel films, they now own every form of distribution to those films. That's why those specific company divisions (such as WDSMP) are mentioned in the footnote. Yes, the Deadline source speaks specifically about home entertainment, however, that sole article was written in context of the home media market, which is evidenced by the inclusion of the retailer's notice.

I'm frankly exhausted that this issue has not been subdued, despite concrete reasoning being provided by editors. Spshu, if you have a personal quip with Disney getting their fingerprints over Marvel, that's your problem, not ours, not other editor's, and certainly not Wikipedia's. If not, then please stop drowning this discussion with singular hypotheticals and beliefs (e.g. "So Disney could have transfered money to Marvel, order Marvel to use its money or wrote the Disney-Marvel part of the agreement to reimburse Marvel for their costs to buy back the home distribution rights say for an advance on home sales with rental of rights by Marvel Studios.") and then framing those assumptions with existing third-party sources that don't even remotely support your argument. It's a strain on other editors who have to constantly exhaust their time, energy and patience to refute such lunacy. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, I know the facts on the table. You two contintual cloud your reasoning an assumption that Disney owns the distribution rights in the particular units mention. I will recopy the argument that you are over looking that Marvel Studios was involved. "The Walt Disney Studios, Paramount Pictures and Marvel Studios announced they have reached an agreement ...". "Please be advised that effective 6/30/2013 Marvel has acquired the distribution rights for Marvel Studio’s Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger." So how isn't Marvel involved?

Marvel "is Disney" as it is a part of the Disney conglomerate as a subsidiary, so "Just Disney" means what exactly. Thus your statement "If you continue to dispute that verified fact, then your argument will be further considered groundless." is baseless. It is you are disputing the the fact that Marvel Studios is involved.

The problem being is that you have not presented concrete reasoning and fail to see the concrete reasoning place before you. And you make up hypotheticals and belief about what I believe or not believe. The "singular hypotheticals and belief" were to show that you and Favre1fan93 don't know what the nature of the agreement. The PR clearly shows that Marvel Studios was involved. If it only the sale of distribution from Paramount to Disney then why at all mention Marvel Studios as an entity being involved (other than them being Marvel movies)? Why does the Paramount letter to the retailers mention that the rights are at Marvel? You have not been able to prove any thing and are making assumptions. You gloss over or hand wave over the mention of Marvel being involved.

You trot out who are what Disney distribution arm is for what medium, which isn't in dispute. But some how you think this is an argument against Marvel involvement? Really? Secondly, NONE of those units are expressly mention. Third, why would WDSMP distribution be involved since the movies have had their theatrical runs already?

Way do we keep on going over and over, you keep on trotting out the same arguments that fail. Which I keep on having to refute other wise you would assume that you are right, which you do any ways. You have fail to assume good faith with those person assumption about me, which shows how far you are off in your reasoning. Lunacy doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. That is exactly what you are doing. Guest who is really triggering the this: "It's a strain on other editors who have to constantly exhaust their time, energy and patience to refute such lunacy." You and Favre1fan93.

Favre1fan93 states: "The rights are going back to Disney because Marvel is their subsidiary." Which agrees with my position then does a bizzare turn about with "Now DISNEY has bought these rights. Marvel is not a distributor, so there for, they have no distribution rights." Which I debunked as then Marvel could never have sold the distribution rights to the movies since they never held them because per his logic could no have happened because "Marvel is not a distributor,". Absolute lunacy, else how could they sell them to Paramount to begin with? Spshu (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk about lunacy, at Talk:Big_Hero_6_(film), Jedi94, you bizarrely argued that the distribution arm should not be listed as the distribution arm but the production banner should be. Spshu (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Besides the above comment being an unrelated tangent of this discussion, I have to address the following: If you were to look more carefully, you would realize that there was a discussion taking place at Talk:Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where multiple editors were actually in support of that "bizarre" argumentative point (The point being that the production banners were simply a more specific representation of the distribution arm). However, after the discussion lost traction and was closed by a third opinion as "no consensus", I decided to (for the sake of resolving the issue once and for all) implement the solution that presented the least amount of problems with WP:NOR. And yes Spshu, editors can modify their opinion during a discussion, especially if it will bring resolution to the discussion.

With that said, please do not deviate from this discussion's subject. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Spshu, there is no reason to resort to personal attacks by scouring their edit pages to find inconsistencies, what matters is this subject right now. The facts we know, are the facts presented from the sources, and from the sources, we can conclude that Disney has purchased all of the distribution rights to those four Marvel films, nothing more. Celestial Reader (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

←If you bother to look, Celestial Reader, you would note that that it is a related issue over distribution and that he contradicts it here. And it was to counter his personal attack on me. He in effect called me a lunatic. So, if Jedi94 attacks people that is OK with you, Celestial Reader? He has made assumption of "bad faith" on my part that I am agruing just for spurious or spiteful reasons. So you are fine with that, Celestial Reader? So, Celestial Reader, with sources that say to contrary to your position, you come to this conclusion how? They have been quote at least twice to debunk that position. That tells me you have not read all the sources or all of this discussion. Spshu (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No, he called the situation lunacy, which it is. You constantly attack, and claim to be attacked. There's no more fighting to be had, we 3 agree, with sources, and you continue to fight, with none, personally attacking. If you want to continue, I'm sure someone at Wikipedia would be happy to end this lunacy. If not, good day. Celestial Reader (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As Celestial Reader pointed out, I actually used the term "lunacy", to describe the absurd actions that have been coming from the discussion. I never used the term "lunatic" (which has a different meaning) and never did I use it to deliberately refer to you. Be careful how you interpret what you read, before you alter my words to wrongfully incriminate me. Also, if you're really classifying my wording as a personal attack, then it must not have bothered you much, considering you used it three times against us. Remember that a discussion is a place where editors work towards agreement. And so far, despite pleas from me, and now Celestial Reader, you continue to break off from this issue and find a way to belittle those that are, like you did with Reader. Very conductive.

Going back to the focus of discussion...earlier you stated "why would WDSMP distribution be involved since the movies have had their theatrical runs already". Well easy: re-releases. Films are re-released all the time. For example, Disney will receive the distribution rights for most of the previous Star Wars films including "theatrical, nontheatrical and home video rights", despite those films already having their theatrical runs. Just because a film is out of the theatrical circuit, doesn't mean the rights to that market are nil and void.

On the more pertinent issue, you claimed that the sources say ("at least twice") that Marvel solely bought the rights. Well, judging by all five sources we have, four of them (The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Los Angeles Business Journal, Business Wire) never say that. They all use phrases such as "reverts to Disney", "Disney has acquired", "transitioned to Disney", and "Disney purchased". Absolutely no phrasing explicitly saying that Marvel purchased and now hold the rights. Granted, the Business Wire mentions Marvel Studios, but it doesn't elaborate its role in the deal. So that just leaves one source; Deadline Hollywood. That source only uses the phrase "Marvel has acquired" once, and that's in context to a notice for home entertainment retailers (Notice that Iron Man 3's domestic home entertainment release is mentioned thereafter). In fact, that same source says three times that the film rights will "revert to Disney", "will be transitioned to Disney", and that "Disney will handle promotional placement". So where are Favre1fan93, Celestial Reader and I wrong on this? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't start the attacks, Celestial Reader, I have kept to the quotes which you ignore and they have purposely or lackidazically ignored. Did they bring any counter arguments to my quote (before Jedi94 last post) no they just trot out what they believe the sources say. Jedi94 started the attacks, but you just want to blame who you want.

Jedi 94: "As Celestial Reader pointed out, I actually used the term "lunacy", to describe the absurd actions that have been coming from the discussion." Which you pointly indirectly at me with out naming me ("other editor" to refer to your side), while you just trot out the same argument with out looking at mine (until your last post). So I point out exactly where the "lunacy" is coming from, since you brought it up.

"Be careful how you interpret what you read, before you alter my words to wrongfully incriminate me." Well, you should have though out how that might be interpreted. You purposely ignore any discussion then claim the same again.

"Also, if you're really classifying my wording as a personal attack, then it must not have bothered you much, considering you used it three times against us." Yes, it did hurt. That is part of the Golden Rule reflecting it back. Isn't that how you wanted to be treated?

"Remember that a discussion is a place where editors work towards agreement." However, I know that what is it for, but your previous actions telegraphed that you did not want to work towards an agreement. You didn't not acknowledge that my sources existed or where quoted correctly.

"you continue to break off from this issue and find a way to belittle those that are, like you did with Reader. Very conductive." I have stayed with my arguments until your post's attacks/failures to assume good faith with the lunacy bit and this: "Spshu, if you have a personal quip with Disney getting their fingerprints over Marvel, that's your problem, not ours, not other editor's, and certainly not Wikipedia's." Even if it isn't an attack, I could go on about every point that you decimated at WP:EQ#Principles of Wikipedia etiquette. But, he could care less. He did not assume good faith and wasn't very conductive either. So, it was just fine since he was siding with you that he piled on?

Yes, lets get back to the topic at hand. (Now, we are getting some where.) Yes, re-releases do happen they are not completely absolutely positively going to accur. When it accurs now it primarily is for movies not released in 3D then the re-release in 3D. Sticking with the Star Wars example that is the case as Episode 1 was re-released in 3D, but Disney has Episode 2 yanked from the 3D re-release. Nor has the distribution division been mention in the sources for Paramount distributed Marvel movies. Perhaps Disney's structure might change by the time these are re-released or not at all? You so firmly state that the source state just "Disney", but yet decide this tells you what units will distribute. You assuming that Disney isn't setting up some joint Marvel-Disney Studios distribution division or as a unit (units can refer to smaller part of divisions) of those existing divisions. I have not been arguing against Disney distributing the movies just you cannot name which unit(s) is/are from the sources.

Two source show Marvel Studios' involvement and one indicating ownership by Marvel. One is the Press Release in full at Business Wire which most of the media sources are based on. Deadline Hollywood refered to in "That source only uses the phrase "Marvel has acquired" once, and that's in context to a notice for home entertainment retailers" from Paramount who is the other party in the agreement so they should know which Disney unit was the buyer despite it not being mention in the press release. ("X Acquired" means "X is the purchasing party".) So yes, this is what I have pointing out all a long. It is that Disney shall be the distributor, but Marvel owns. When they say Disney, they are talk about Marvel, too, as it is talking general which means any part of the conglomerate as Marvel Entertaiment is a whole owned Disney subsidiary. Otherwise, you would have to rule out DADT as TV distributor as that is a part of the ABC wing of the Disney conglomerate and has ABC in the name, Disney ABC Domestic TV. 22:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Spshu (talk)

Hey Jedi94, I found three more: The Motley Fool, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, and RTT News — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.224.17 (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've actually been working on getting back to the discussion for a while now (I've tried in my past three replies). But that doesn't really matter anymore, because now with Spshu's last substantial comment, we're finally moving forward. (Huzza!) So, how about we all put this animosity aside and just forgive and forget? (A virtual handshake, per se) Sound good? I actually have an idea that has yet to be suggested; How about we just change the wording of the note? (Since that's what garnered controversy in the first place). My suggestion is that it should be written as this:

"In July 2013, the distribution rights to these films were transferred from Paramount Pictures to The Walt Disney Studios."

This version eliminates the inclusion of all the divisions and keeps the note simple, accurate, and to the point. Also, it keeps it parallel with the other note regarding Disney's similar purchase of the rights to The Avengers and Iron Man 3. What do you all think of it? (By the way, from whom was the unsigned IP comment? Spshu, Favre1fan93 or Celestial Reader? Or is it a new editor?) ~ Jedi94 (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that's settled. I'm just a newbie here and was glad to help. I don't mean to start anything but forgive me, but I've been noticing Spshu's behavior here at this site on how he likes to bash people, cause edit wars to have his way on articles and templates, etc. That can't work like that. Shouldn't that lead to blocking or banishment? I think he needs to be monitored a lot by administrators on how he cause edit wars and other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.226.13 (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so it was a new editor. In that case, welcome aboard, the recently salvaged ship! And thanks for adding your two cents to our discussion. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to contribute more, think about registering! Always good to have new, eager contributors! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with the new wording. I think really, that's all that needs to be said. If this is agreed upon, just make sure to universally change it on the other pages it appears. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It's okay Jedi94. I'm here to help. I'm just making sure I don't vandalize here. I don't like vandalism. And I don't like edit wars. Unlike a certain user I see on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.224.17 (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Perfect. I'll wait to see if Spshu and Celestial Reader are okay with it before I change it on all the pages. And yes 99.46.224.17, you should think about registering, it's easy and it's beneficial, since it gives you a better identity. You can even refer to me for help (if you so desire some). ~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You have my okay, it sounds good to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestial Reader (talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Not correct, note should read -- if you will not include Marvel Studios' ownership of those rights): "In July 2013, the distribution activities to these films were transferred from Paramount Pictures to The Walt Disney Studios."

99.46.224.17, you are not |assuming good faith nor did you listen to Jedi94 to forgive and forget. Nor even in this case are you paying attention to what is going on. I could spell it out for you, but you have made your mind up about me. Spshu (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A company cannot involve itself in distribution activities if it doesn't have the rights to do such activities in the first place. Thus, the use of "rights" would be more accurate, since that's what's being reported and quoted in the sources. It also aligns itself well with the other footnote regarding The Avengers and Iron Man 3, a deal which is essentially the same as this one. The only discernible difference between the two deals is timing (First deal happened before those two films were released, the second one occurred after those four films were released. Nevertheless, both deals are of the same nature). ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a company can involve itself in distribution activities with out "rights" via "work for hire" or private label agreements. Sources indicated that the distribution rights are with the Disney conglomerate not which unit (Marvel Studios or Disney Studios), execpt for the Deadline which indicate Marvel acquired the rights. With the Avengers and Iron Man 3 there was no indicating that Marvel acquiring those rights. Spshu (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

OK...so what does everyone else think about Spshu's version? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I still feel that "rights" is a better term to use. Disney can only do distributing activity if it has the rights to it, so rights would be the better term to use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

But which version are you choosing, Favre1fan93? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.224.17 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Still with Jedi's original. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense! I'll follow suit and agree as well. Um, as for you Spshu? For your information? I have been paying attention to what's going on in this discussion on what Jedi94 said. So that's why I've looked up some more resources and brought them here. Have you found any? And there's a keyword on what you said: "assume" and that's what you did. I think that's what you always do? And the prefix of that word is what you're making of yourself. Pretty much made of yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.224.17 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing, I forgive you.

I will agree to either one. Whatever ends this faster and easier. Celestial Reader (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

All right, I'll rewrite the note appropriately with the original proposal on all affected articles. It's obviously the least fastidious and the most agreed upon. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

←99.46.224.17, my source was there from the beginning which if you paid attention, Jedi94 said was a fabrication. It took him six days to agree that it actually existed. So, no you have not been paying attention. I assumed nothing, I went with the source which most of the others are reasonable based on the press release which indicates Marvel Studios involvement while the Paramount letter to retail indicates Marvel owning the rights with Disney handling distribution. Gee, 99.46.224.17, a person attack which is against the rules here. I though you were not here to break the rules? Where Favre1fan93 in stating "Disney can only do distributing activity if it has the rights to it, so rights would be the better term to use." is false, I have already stated how is not necessarily the case as it can be contracted out. But, I am appearently out voted. Spshu (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well now, I'm glad you see when you're outvoted. And you say to me "a person attack which is against the rules here"? Do everyone here at Wikipedia a favor, and follow suit as well. We would all appreciate it. Thank you! 99.46.224.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Both of you have (or are borderline) personally attacking the other, so IP 99.46... don't think Spshu is only at fault here. Mentalities like that will not get you far here. Anyways, can we please move on from this, now that we have reach the resolution, whether it's the outcome we wanted or not? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Rights

Punisher was the first set of rights to return. The announcement was made at 2010 ComicCon while Blade was announced at 2011 ComicCon, and then Daredevil was the following fall and Ghost Rider was revealed through a magazine article.140.211.63.139 (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This information is already on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Studios/Entertainment separate pages

After thinking for a while do you believe that Marvel Studios should have its own seperate page and its self-produced films. While we can make a page called Marvel Entertainment (production studio) and make a page for films that are licensed to other studios like Fox and Sony. - User:Longshot45 (talk) 8 May 2014

Not really necessary, given the info here and at the list of all Marvel films page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just saying we should think about it. Marvel Studios is its own separate studio they produces their own separate films like Iron Man, Thor, Ant-Man and Avengers while Marvel Entertainment is a separate studio as well but they licensed their character rights to other studios. Thats why I think we should make a Marvel Entertainment (production) page plus Marvel Studios has a different logo than the Marvel Entertainment one. We can take some stuff from this page for the Marvel Entertainment page and keep the necessary things on the Marvel Studios page. - User:Longshot45 (talk) 8 May 2014 (UTC)

They are of the same company group with Marvel Entertainment the parent company and Marvel Studios is its subsidiary and only film studio. Marvel Entertainment is not a film studio. What you may be seeing is that Fox and Columbia is crediting Marvel Entertainment for their co-productions despite Marvel Studios handling what little pre-production work on those films for which the Studio gets production credits and fees. I don't know why they credit Marvel Entertainment. --Spshu (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Cap 3 and Guardians 2 missing?

How come they aren't under upcoming films? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.126.21 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Only films in pre-production, filming, or post-production are listed here. The full list of films can be found at List of films based on Marvel Comics. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps an in-development/possible films section should be added for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.126.21 (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That is unnecessary, as we have the full list on the page I linked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A rather sweeping statement

"The only rights that are still left at other studios are the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchise of characters at 20th Century Fox and the Spider-Man franchise of characters at Sony/Columbia Pictures."

I know there is a source saying this, but can we say with absolute certainty that they are correct? Immediately jumping out at me is "Deadpool" which is clearly a franchise in its own right from what is being said elsewhere on this page and others (which the source lumps in with the X-Men characters). On top of this, it is really just a compilation of characters who have appeared on screen and claims "Every other Marvel character" belongs at Marvel, when realistically there are probably hundreds more at least in these other franchises (just for an example we know for certain "Apocalypse" is missing from the X-Men list despite the fact the next X-Men movie is named after him).

There just seems to be far too many assumptions on this article's part, could this particular comment be altered to say these three franchises are still out with Marvel control, rather than saying there are absolutely no other franchises still out there (which is more than a possibility given the Deadpool situation). Ruffice98 (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Deadpool's rights fall under the X-Men franchise, so this statement is correct. It would be improper to list every single character with rights elsewhere, so the large "franchise" names are the best way to state this info. And it is sourced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Except he doesn't fall under the X-Men rights. There's certainly enough evidence to confirm that is the case (indeed some of it is used further up the article whilst discussing the Artisan Entertainment deal in 2000, of which one of the characters sold off was Deadpool). As far as everyone is aware those four sets of rights are the only ones still out there, but there are some pretty big assumptions being made by that source which clearly pose problems. If that's one flaw with the source, can we be certain there aren't other mistakes as well? Surely there must be better ones out there than just an inaccurate fan prepared list. Ruffice98 (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Are the Spider-Man films now really co-productions?

I was looking at the article and saw this particular note:

"Disney would receive full merchandising ancillary rights to future Spider-Man films in exchange for Sony purchasing out Marvel's film participation rights"

If this is the case then surely any film after "The Amazing Spider-Man" (for example "The Amazing Spider-Man 2") surely cannot be co-productions involving Marvel Studios if Marvel have no involvement whatsoever? Ruffice98 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Studios is not a co-production partner on any Spider-Man film. They are all done with Marvel Entertainment, which generally has no control on the actual production process of the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not strictly true, while it might be done formally by Marvel Entertainment, Marvel Studios are still the ones who actually do the work, so that's fair enough (for example, Kevin Feige is credited as some form of producer up to and including the 2012 film), however if Marvel have no involvement whatsoever, why is The Amazing Spider-Man 2 listed as a co-production? It will have to be removed because it certainly isn't a co-production if Marvel have no involvement with the film whatsoever. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is uncertain given the above swap of rights/revenue sources, so at this time it is probably best not to included them on the list. Spshu (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I say the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.214.147 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

So you think you'll just add them, we've already explained the situation, don't add it unless there actually is a source which there clearly isn't. Ruffice98 (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

All the subsection of co-productions it's wrong, Marvel Studios isn't co-producer of any film of Columbia Pictures or 20th Century Fox. Must be removed.OscarFercho (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking yes, however Marvel Entertainment clearly cannot have been doing it without Marvel Studios and several individuals from Marvel Studios were working on those movies and as Marvel Studios is a part of Marvel Entertainment it certainly makes sense. Of course it would be slightly nicer if we could find a source because at the moment this is essentially original research because we are the ones making the logical conclusion that it was Marvel Studios doing the work on Marvel Entertainment's behalf. I'd say to leave it for the moment, but try to look for something a bit more concrete one way or the other. Spider-Man is certainly clear as nobody from Marvel is working on it (unless these crossover rumours come to something in the end). Ruffice98 (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an article of Marvel Studios and the inclusion of list of coproductions, that not are true, it's confussing and, specially, a mistake information.OscarFercho (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It is confusing, that's why there is no clear solution. The problem is that while Marvel Entertainment is credited that doesn't rule out Marvel Studios as being the ones who worked on it as they are a part of Marvel Entertainment, so there would be nothing incorrect in stating that Marvel Entertainment worked on these films if Marvel Studios did the work. The evidence at hand suggests they did but it is most certainly not concrete enough to confirm it outright, really we need a source confirming it one way or the other because at the moment it is original research rather than being outright wrong. Ruffice98 (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

All the subsection of coproductions must be removed of this article, if Marvel Entertainment was coproducer, not concern to an article of Marvel Studios.OscarFercho (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If it wasn't a concern of Marvel Studios they would already be gone. The problem is that there is no proof to confirm it wasn't Marvel Studios. Marvel Studios is after all part of Marvel Entertainment so it may very well have been them doing the work the whole time but the larger organization of which they are a part was taking the credit. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

But, there's not any Marvel Studios reference on the credits of that "coproductions", everything it's wrong with the inclusion of that list on this article.OscarFercho (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed there is no reference to it. The problem is while Marvel Entertainment got the credit, all the people we know were doing the work were Marvel Studios employees (for example Avi Arad and Kevin Feige), and as Marvel Studios is a part of Marvel Entertainment you cannot eliminate the possibility outright. We need a source to settle it one way or the other because at the moment it is completely ambiguous as to what happened. Ruffice98 (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

So then, the place for the list of these "coproductions" it's on the article of Marvel Entertainment, not in this article without a reliable sources based only on wrong conclusions and without real involvement of the actually Business Unity Marvel Studios.OscarFercho (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be, if it wasn't for the fact the only part of Marvel Entertainment capable of co-producing is Marvel Studios. However, with people adding The Amazing Spider-Man 2 back into the list repeatedly it would certainly help if we could just get rid of the list 100% as it serves no purpose. There's a list of films based on Marvel Comics and lists for film franchises in their own right, so we don't need another such list anywhere. Ruffice98 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

But the list of coproductions it's wrong on this article, and a wrong information on the project. There's not a really coproduction involvement of Marvel Studios 'til this day and the inclusion of that list on this article it's a mistake.OscarFercho (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said already, you are going to the other extreme. We know Marvel Entertainment are credited as co-producers. However, this does NOT rule out Marvel Studios as the co-producers, the information is not necessarily wrong, the problem is we don't have a source to confirm that it was Marvel Studios doing the work which is the reason why it should either be moved or removed because at the moment it is original research. A rather sensible guess I would point out, but not one backed up by a source. Ruffice98 (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man rights are with Sony, not with Marvel

Title of the section says it all. The official press release states quite clearly that the rights remain with Sony, Marvel have access to the character but they do not have any sort of claim over the film rights. I am going to attempt to tidy up the mess that has been made from a user's misunderstanding but if anyone else would be able to have another look over this it would be greatly appreciated. Ruffice98 (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to me (which I believe you are), I am fully aware of the current deal. The character rights have been licensed out to Marvel. There is nothing wrong, or improper in stating what is on the page. It continues to state that Sony has the character rights, though they are not solely at that studio, unlike all the rights at 20th Century Fox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity or complications, the official press release states quite clearly that Sony continue to own the rights to the film franchise and they remain the sole owners. Marvel have gained access for one film and that is all, that doesn't mean they have the rights to the charact6er (in fact the opposite is true). I don't want to get into an edit war here, but please see that what you are claiming in the article is totally wrong, although the confusion is understandable. I'll leave the article for the moment, but as it stands this information is wrong (additionally there are other issues with the following claim that only the X-Men and Fantastic Four remain out with Marvel control, which certainly hasn't got a decent source backing it up, indeed a bit of research shows there is at least one other franchise out there which the source falsely claims is part of the X-Men franchise). Ruffice98 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The section is character rights not film rights. So yes you are correct, Sony still has the film rights to Spider-Man. But the deal was to license the character, allowing Marvel to use those rights. The wording has been crafted to accurately state this, specifically by using the word "solely". Reading this sentence thus reveals that while there is a licensing deal to allow Marvel to utilize the character rights of Spider-Man, Sony still has control of them - they are not fully back at Marvel. As well, the source for 20th Century Fox is the most accurate we have. What other franchise do you believe to be at another studio? Per the update of the infograph (here) the only other character in question is Namor, which we talk about here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The particular example we (the public) are aware of is Deadpool (this fact is even mentioned earlier in the article where details of the franchise's to Artisan Entertainment are described), although there may in theory be more beyond that, we genuinely do not know as nobody has outright said there are no more franchises out there beyond those three (even information on Deadpool being separate is rare these days since Fox uses it alongside their X-Men films). At any rate, the comment as it currently stands is misleading, as Marvel have no claims on the franchise, so it is solely with Sony. There is information on Spider-Man, I don't see why you have to say the rights are "solely" with Fox at all, when there are far less misleading ways of saying this. Ruffice98 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I still fail to see how it is misleading. The first phrase: "After the licensing agreement between Sony and Marvel for the rights of Spider-Man,". This follows the info in the second paragraph giving more detail on the deal. We just say licensing here, not anything else to imply full ownership by Marvel. The second phrase: "the only rights that are still left solely at another studio are the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchise of characters at 20th Century Fox." Again, 100% true. Because Sony does not solely own the Spider-Man rights any more. They are shared with Marvel. So this is acceptable to state. And Deadpool is an X-Men franchise character, not his own franchise. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please not this again, as I said it is very explicitly mentioned earlier on in the article that Deadpool has a franchise of his own, as does the X-Men film series page, which goes into the deal and how Fox eventually obtained the franchise in far more detail than here (because by that point it was well out of Marvel Studio's hands). Back to the topic at hand, could the comment at least be clarified to make it clear this is about access, not ownership? Also, just to point out,, you said Sony don't solely own the rights again, ownership is entirely with Sony. Ruffice98 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

How about this: "After the licensing agreement that allowed Marvel use of Spider-Man in their films,[ref] the only rights that Marvel does not have access to are the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchise of characters at 20th Century Fox.[ref]" We can't say or put anything regarding Deadpool being a separate franchise, because the source we have lists him as an X-Men franchise character. This would be the best we could do, plus the bit on Namor after. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is definitely a lot better, my only hope is that we can find somewhere confirming Deadpool is out of Marvel's hands as well (obvious to anyone who can see the history of the deal, but as nobody has mentioned it recently it makes it a bit of a mess with the original research rules, namely because I can get you sources confirming Fox has him and sources confirming he's separate, both at once seems to be nowhere at all oddly). Ruffice98 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll make the change. But the source lumps Deadpool in as an "X-Men mutant" so he is covered as is. But unless we find a source that defines Fox's rights as being X-Men, FF and Deadpool individually, we shouldn't make a separate mention. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. I can give you Deadpool is a separate franchise, but getting a contemporary reference is the problem (which is ultimately what we need as we are talking about what Fox currently own, making the logical conclusion isn't an option to us as Wikipedia editors, although the correct information is available on Wikipedia in the less demanding portions of the relevant articles so it isn't too bad, even if we do have one gap where it falls down). Ruffice98 (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Stop it

I've had to remove The Amazing Spider-Man 2 from the co-productions table yet again. I would like to ask everyone here to keep an eye out for this getting added again in future. This is blatant vandalism, we have a source confirming Marvel had no involvement with Sony's films at this point in time so it is NOT a co-production. The latest excuse is that it is to add "more information", this isn't information, at best it is ignorance at worst it is blatant lying, please stop.

Does anyone have any suggestions to prevent this happening in future? Ruffice98 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll add a hidden note. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You idiots want proof that marvel was involved in the production, the film OPPPENNNS with the MARRRVEL logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.92.173 (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A logo in the film's opening is not proof. Just proof that they are required to have the logo or want to & have permission to use the logo. Spshu (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if that was proof, it is a Marvel Entertainment logo, not the Marvel Studios logo, you'd open up a whole new can of worms trying to use that argument which would get the lot taken off the page. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

MCU Spider-Man: Co-production versus production

Me again. This is a little issue I have become increasingly aware of over the past few days given recent news. I've been keeping my eye on it since the initial press announcement but nothing has still come up. Colombia Pictures have not once been mentioned in relation to the new Spider-Man film. Everything has been about Marvel Studios and Sony Picture Entertainment. Colombia obviously are their distribution arm as well as their production studio but it does raise a rather important question, how involved are Sony in the production of the film. This interview recently made things a bit more complicated:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ant-man-saga-paul-rudd-804566

This quote in particular is of interest:

"Without getting into the contracts, it's definitely a Sony picture, produced by Marvel Studios. We've been working with each other for a number of months now. It's been just as healthy as any of our internal discussions. We just look at it as having additional team members. We wouldn't want to do it if we couldn't do it in the way we've done all the other movies, and I think that's what Sony wants from us."

Obviously this won't be an issue for about a year when the film enters production, but which camp is the film going to fall into. Here we have Kevin Feige saying its a Marvel Studios production for Sony, but they are definitely involved in production. We don't need a decision just yet, but it is worth discussing what is going to happen when the time comes. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Is your issue whether Columbia should be mentioned at all in relation to the production? For me, from Feige's quote, "it's definitely a Sony picture, produced by Marvel Studios" reads as it will be the same as all previous Spidey films in terms of production company and distributor, but Marvel Studios is an additional production partner. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is it doesn't read as that, he just says it's a Sony film produced by Marvel, which can be interpreted either way. Colombia will have to be distributor because they are the ones that do it for Sony, the question becomes are Colombia actually co-producing it or is it just (as he puts it) "having additional team members". We will obviously get our answer when the film comes out and we see the credits and it won't be valid for inclusion in the article's tables for nearly a year anyway, but in the mean time I would like if everyone can keep their eyes peeled and have a look for anything more concrete one way or the other. We are in no rush, but the situation isn't clear. It would obviously help if we didn't have a co-production table which doesn't include a single Marvel Studios' credited film of course, but we are stuck with it for the moment. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well while we are on this topic, I think we should retitle the "Co-production" heading. None of those are Marvel Studios co-productions. They are all Marvel Entertainment productions, which is not Marvel Studios. That way, we could use that heading to place the new Spidey film under. Do you have any thoughts on what we could retitle that section? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'd go for "Marvel Entertainment credited films" and move it entirely to the Marvel Entertainment page if they'll take it. Marvel Studios handled the initial deals and a few of its staff worked on the films, but Marvel Entertainment were the ones credited. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we have to move it, but I'd support maybe "Marvel Entertainment productions" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd definitely support the retitling of the "Co-production" heading per Favre1fan93's reasoning that none of those films are actually co-produced by Marvel Studios proper. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 16:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Marvel Entertainment productions

Now that Marvel Studios is no longer a part of Marvel Entertainment and now a part of Walt Disney Studios, should we start excluding the future non-MCU films in this article, since they are under the involvement of Marvel Entertainment rather than Marvel Studios itself? Should Deadpool and X-Men: Apocalypse be a part of this article, since they began filming before the reorganization? Richiekim (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about this as well. I was actually thinking that any "Marvel Entertainment" info (ie the first three subsections under history) plus the table for live action be moved over to Marvel Entertainment (maybe under a films section?) Because really "Marvel Studios" is from 2004-05 on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of those assertions, particularly with Favre1fan93's thoughts on removing any Marvel Entertainment-related content. Additionally, I also believe that the only films that should really be listed here are the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, since those are the only ones produced by Marvel Studios-proper. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 21:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you be willing to help make this split Jedi94? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd definitely be willing to help. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 01:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Same. The tables will be easy to move over, it's the prose that will be difficult. Because I feel we should summarize the moving prose here slightly in the Background section to not completely remove it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. A summation would be the best play for the prose. So how do you want to proceed?~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 16:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to move the table(s) out first, then try to tackle the prose. I might throw it in my sandbox, so you can see/comment on what I'm going to change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This is what I came up with to add to the background section. And then basically move over everything as is up until the "Production" subheading to Marvel Entertainment. Thought? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that definitely works. Seems to summarize it fairly well. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 21:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you want to see how you can fit in what's here over at Marvel Entertainment? That would be helpful. And then we can plop my sandbox work in here and we should be good for the most part here and there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Films in development only mentioned

I want more opinions. It's possible include the single mention of films on development? This, as I see, to shown all the productions that Marvel Studios planeed, and reflect the model of the Lucasfilm article, another Business Unity of Disney conglomerate. Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: @Favre1fan93: @DilatoryRevolution: @Osubuckeyeguy: @Lowercase: @Jedi94: @Richiekim: can bring your opinion to this? Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Additionally, at most, we should only add a sentence along the lines of "Marvel Studios has X additional films in development stages." and leave it at that. As I said in my edit summary the first time, the full list can appropriately be viewed at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and the full list of films based on Marvel comics. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Lucasfilms has no list of movies article like Marvel, so no comparison thus not a model for Marvel Studios. In fact the whole list should be removed as there is Marvel Cinematic Universe, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and List of films based on Marvel Comics. This is just dupliating and "make work" to maintain it at this article. Spshu (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm in 100% agreement with you Spshu to remove the table here, and just leave the section with the hat notes. We should probably use Marvel Cinematic Universe#Film (as that section will then take readers to the main MCU list if they desire) and List of films based on Marvel Comics. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your opinion.OscarFercho (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Perfectly change Agree . Greetings.OscarFercho (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Marvel Music to be merged into Marvel Studios

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a continuation of the post-archival discussion. Please confirm or oppose if you want Marvel Music to be merged into Marvel Studios. I am in support of this merge, however, the Marvel Music section would have to sample a lot of content from Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in order to pass notoriety as a sub-section. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

In order to prevent certain users from reiterating themselves, I will be sampling quotes from the post-archival discussion from Talk:Marvel Music that is relevant to this discussion. If said users change their opinion, please do update the discussion with the reasons why. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless anybody wishes to voice their reasons as to why this merge should not occur, I will be conducting the merge of Marvel Music into Marvel Studios at 17th August 2017. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I was going to offer this merger as alternative. On the other hand, Adamstom.97 and Favre1fan93's argument against merging Music of MSU and Marvel Music, Inc. would apply here - ie. no connection. If no connection can be made about a company and its copyright material and/or products then why would it have any thing to do with its parent unit? Iftekharahmed96 and Vipersnake, You had the same argument over Marvel Music -- Marvel Music, Inc. had nothing to do with with the Marvel Music imprint. Yet, amazingly enough, Vipersnake did connect the dots in the article "The Marvel Music brand has since been repurposed as a unit of Marvel Studios to publish and release music from its works, such as its film soundtracks." Mystically, their argument doesn't apply to Marvel Studios, but to the closer products of Marvel Music, Inc: Music of MCU. Spshu (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

To be fair Spushu, Marvel Music the record company's sole purpose is to distribute soundtracks from Marvel Studio movies, so the connection is direct and relevant. Despite myself being in support of the merger of Marvel Music and Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the latter article was designed as a comprehensive list of Marvel Cinematic Universe compositions and musical tracks. As I mentioned earlier, a lot of content can be sampled from Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe for the Marvel Music section.

Result: This discussion will now be closed. I am going to merge Marvel Music into Marvel Studios as everybody is in support of it here. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

As I said in my previous edit summary, I removed added material (and unarchived the discussion) in what was a major WP:TALKNO violation. I will also courtesy ping @Adamstom.97: given they had one of their comments added here inappropriately. With that out of the way, yes, per a previous discussion held at Talk:Marvel Music (perm link here, the "Post archival... section) I am in agreement with the merge of Marvel Music here. And to Iftekharahmed96, every single discussion does not need a user to add the archive box around it. When this discussion concludes, it isn't needed. Yes it can be helpful, but for such a small discussion as this, it isn't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Cool, I was unaware that what I did violated Wikipedia's rules and for that I am sorry. point being, I was under the assumption that linking a person username pings them, but looks like I was wrong about that. I'll add the archive tags regardless so that nobody else intrude in the discussion after the decision. It's always ideal to close a discussion page if it's regarding a decision. This discussion will be closed as a unanimous agreement has been made with everybody involved, the merge has been approved: Marvel Music will be merged into Marvel Studios. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jumping the gun

I know it was done in good faith, but the person who opens a merge discussion cannot be the one to declare it closed! That's an obvious conflict of interest. Merge discussions are closed by disinterested, uninvolved third parties — generally an admin.

I'm not against merging Marvel Music into Marvel Studios; it's probably a good idea that cuts down on repetitive material. But there's a bigger picture. It's hard enough operating with collegiality and accord as it is — but if we don't follow the basic rules, it means anarchy, which is never a good state in which to get anything done. If the merge is a good idea, the discussion will likely close in favor of one. But let's follow protocol. There is, after all, no deadline. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

What you just said goes against WP:MERGECLOSE... "anyone may perform the merger" ... "Mergers do not need to be approved by an admin" Argento Surfer (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:MERGE clearly wasn't followed here. The discussion had been going on for over a week before a tag was placed on the destination page and then in a matter of hours the merge was performed. From the perspective of someone following the destination page but not the subject page, this did feel abrupt. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This was an alternate target selected after a (long) discussion about merging Marvel Music with Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe at Talk:Marvel Music. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the point of the tag is to alert users to the discussion. I stand by my claim that this felt abrupt as a follower of this page but not the others. I never had a chance to read the discussion, let alone participate in it. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That seems like something to take up with User:Iftekharahmed96 on their talk page, unless you disagree with the merge. Otherwise, I don't see how this is any different that a BOLD merge without discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If it was a BOLD merge, then shouldn't it have been discussed after that was reverted (twice) instead of just re-reverting? I'm not arguing against the merge, I'm just agreeing with Tenebrae that we should adhere to the guidelines better. - DinoSlider (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ When no one is objecting to the outcome, reverting the merge on a technical procedural matter seems counter-productive. Iftekharahmed96 could use some guidance and direction, but it's already being delivered (and heard) on his talk page. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Does anybody object to the merge? If not then we don't need to discuss it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as I was the individual that started said conversation, let me give some context as to why I did what I did. The process of this merger has three stages. The first stage was deciding as to whether Marvel Music and Marvel Music (imprint) should be standalone articles, to which the majority voted yes, as the only affiliation the two companies had was the name "Marvel Music". The benefit that this article split provided was that Marvel Music (imprint) was a stronger article, but at the expense of Marvel Music being fairly barren. Spshu stressed that Marvel Music on its own would not pass notoriety, and the second stage began in which it was suggested that Marvel Music and Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe be merged, with Marvel Music being the surviving article, and Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe being a re-direct. I erroneously closed the discussion as I thought that the majority voted against that, but a post-archival was opened as Spushu corrected me in saying that two people voted for the merge, and two people voted against the merge. The post-archival discussion continued on until the two people who voted against the merge of Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe into Marvel Music (Argento Surfer and Favre1fan93) decided that Marvel Music being implemented into Marvel Studios was the best option if Marvel Music as a standalone article could no longer work out. So as you can see, the third stage, and the stage that this discussion is about is about the Marvel Music article being absorbed into Marvel Studios.

Should I have executed this better? no question about it. But this topic of the status of Marvel Music was being dragged for so long that I started to get a bit tired to be honest. I understand the no rush rule with Wikipedia, but there was just no means of closure. When it seems that a conclusion has been made, another can of worms opened. Besides, if nobody is against this merge (like Emir of Wikipedia has stated) then why continue discussing. If the issue was about my execution of the discussion, then it should have been on my talk page. Regardless, I will take all of this as a learning experience for the future. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion was only started on the 16th. Discussions should be open for atleast a week. I understand that it stems from a separate discussion on another page but you have to give people here time to respond.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If there is anybody who is opposed to this merge of Marvel Music into Marvel Studios then a post-archival discussion can be created. As of right now, nobody is outright against the merged that occured. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No, anyone may not unilaterally close a merge discussion — not unless there is clearly no unanimous consensus, and even then not after just three days. Here is exactly what "Merge closing" says (my boldface):

If enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or is unanimous consent to merge, any user may close the discussion and move forward with the merger. In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved is normally made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has been established; such a request may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard.

So this fails on two counts: There was not unanimous consent, and not enough time had elapsed. I'm not necessarily against the merge, and it's probably a good idea, but anytime any editor unilaterally rushes his or her own idea through, running roughshod over process, that is not good for Wikipedia as a whole. What is the rush that the merge-suggester doesn't want to wait for more than a few days' worth of editors to weigh in? What is the fear in having more editors discuss this?--Tenebrae (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me elaborate on what the problem is with what you're trying to do here Tenebrae, Marvel Music was conceptualised as an article with two unaffiliated entities into one article. Inevitably, the affiliation with the two entities meant that the article had to have a split, with Marvel Music as an article that apparently doesn't pass notoriety. If you "wait three days", it will benefit nobody. You're either going to get people unanimously agreeing, or you have to figure out a way to get Marvel Music to pass notoriety. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) It wasn't unanimous; User:DinoSlider expressed concerns. What is wrong with letting more users weigh in? You're rushing the process. Are you afraid a disintersted third party won't agree with you? That's the only reason for rushing. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This is irritating. I swear to god, I do everything in my power to try and get Marvel Music sorted out and somebody still has to complain about the process of execution. Go ahead, wait it out for three days, we're just digging a hole for ourselves at this point with Marvel Music. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It's more than just waiting three days. As I mention in my post immediately above, there is not unanimous consensus. Sp according to the rules, there needs to be an outside, disinterested editor. Anyone acting in good faith to do a merge will have no issue in letting a disinterested party close the discussion. For the discussion originator to preemptively close the discussion himself is clear conflict-of-interest.

And look at this this way: If a disinterested editor with no dog in the hunt closes pro-merger, than just makes the merger stronger and less likely to be challenged later, whereas a conflict-of-interest, unilateral close is antithetical to the spirit of collaboration. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm pinging @Spshu:, @Favre1fan93:, @Adamstom.97:, @TriiipleThreat:, @Argento Surfer: and @Emir of Wikipedia: since they were involved in the boxed discussions above and/or at Talk:Marvel Music and deserve the opportunity to have their voices heard here if they so choose. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me to these discussions. I regret getting involved in it. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I apologize. I did so in good faith, but I can understand why you feel this way. I sometimes feel that way myself. I certainly would never want to alienate such a good and longtime colleague as you. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you want Marvel Music to be part of the Marvel Studios article

This discussion has started on Saturday 8:30pm BST and will close on Monday 8:30pm BST. Whoever wishes to be involved with the discussion, do you agree or oppose the merge of Marvel Music into Marvel Studios? I agree to this merge. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the need to point this out, but editors can't dictate a onetwo-day closer to a merge discussion. I noted this in the section above, and anyone can go to WP:MERGECLOSE and see the quoted text for themselves. Bulling some personal desire through with no regard for the collaborative process that brought us all here is completely improper, no matter how good the idea may be. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

But I just said that this discussion will start today and end on Monday. That's literally three days. Screw this, I'm unfollowing this page. This is annoying and tiring, I've done all I can to try and fix the Marvel Music article in a collaborative manner. At the very least, state whether you agree or oppose the merge. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm neutral. I would prefer we first work out the larger issue of the need to have any sort of Marvel music (lowercase) page if we have "Soundtrack of" pages for each film / TV show. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems like this has just gotten silly while I've been away (and why are there so many different sections on the same subject?). It appears that there isn't really any major concerns with this merge, so unless somebody comes forward in a the next couple of days I think we can just go ahead. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I am still in support of the merge, but I do agree with Tenebrae, that this discussion should be "open" for at least a week (hence why I initially indicated to Ifte above that the discussion didn't need, and shouldn't have the archive tags around it). Additionally, Tenebrae, forgive me if I am reading this incorrectly, but I am getting the impression from your comment above Adam's that you may not be clear what Marvel Music is. It is a record company that produces/releases the soundtracks for the films and TV series of Marvel Studios and Marvel Television. From you comment, I am believing you may think it is a "catch all" article where we discuss said soundtracks (or should become one). Again, please forgive me if I am interpreting your stance and comments incorrectly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You're correct; that was my impression, since I knew only that Marvel Music was the name of a Marvel print imprint. That's another reason I've been neutral; as I said at the start, I haven't edited these articles and have only a passing familiarity with them, so I didn't feel I could give an informed opinion.

Still, I go back to the larger question: If we have "Soundtrack of" articles, do we need a separate Marvel music or Music of the MCU article? It seems that there's a lot of repetition, with some of the same content at 1) each of the movie/show articles, 2) in the respective "Soundtrack of" articles, and 3) in the Marvel music/Music of the MCU article(s). I'm not sure why we have so much of the same content in three different articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I have been saying, the articles haven't really been sorted out yet. Once we/I have gone through them all then the reason for the divisions of content should be more clear. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I've distance myself from this topic for quite some time now in order to contribute more rationally. From what I'm seeing, nobody is still outright against the merge. At best, there's questioning about the format of Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but that's not directly related to Marvel Music. The majority vote was against Marvel Music merging with Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe so we've already crossed that bridge multiple times. The last response was on 20th of August, I am responding on the 1st of September, that's more than enough time from the time span that I initially presented. I'll go ahead with the merge once again. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Marvel Music is now a section of Marvel Studios

Now that Marvel Music is a dedicated section of the Marvel Studios article, there needs to be an overhaul in its presentation in order to feel naturally connected to the larger Marvel Studios article. I recommend sampling key content from Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and re-writing it in the Marvel Music section. Any other recommendations or actions to improve the section is deeply appreciated. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Disney hunts for a fox

With Disney buying fox will that let x-men, fantastic 4 and who eles (I do not knew who fox has the rights for) join the MCU? Fanoflionking (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, as mentioned at the end of this section, Feige has said that most of the rights Fox owns would transfer to Disney who could then use the characters in the MCU, as long as the deal goes through because as far as I know, the deal still isn't finalized yet and so the government could still block the merger. --TheSameGuy (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Netflix?

Why doesn't this article discuss the relationship between Marvel characters and Netflix? The relationship seems much more significant than many of the relationships mentioned."Netflix" does not appear in the article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.194.176 (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not following. All the characters that have appeared in Netflix series have their rights back at Marvel, and notable ones (Luke Cage, Daredevil, and Punisher) have their former rights holders and the revert back to Marvel mentioned. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Were they related to Marvel Studios though? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The Netflix TV series were done by Marvel Television, which a part of Marvel Studio for a while. Since, the show stay with Marvel TV after leaving Marvel Studios, it make sense only to cover the Netflix relationship at Marvel TV. Spshu (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Merger complete

And as a result, Marvel has regained the rights to all their characters which Fox previously held. Since this article was published after 12:02am EST (when the merger was announced as complete), is it worth adding to mention that Marvel regained the rights in past tense? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)