4

A few days ago, I asked a question on how Stan Lee was able to tell the stories to a trio of Watchers about being a FedEx agent when the events of GoTG Vol 2 took place in 2014 and Civil War in 2016.

But what if Stan Lee was referring to his cameo in 2005's Fantastic Four where he played a mailman delivering mails to Reed Richards

enter image description here

Given that the Watchers made their first appearance in Fantastic Four #13 (1963), it makes sense for Fox to have the rights for Watchers along with other cosmic Marvel villains like Galactus, Silver Surfer etc.

So, does Stan Lee's scene on GoTG Vol 2 indicate that Fantastic Four rights are returning back to Marvel? Or was he just referring to his scene in Civil War?

  • 1
    "What if?". That's asking for opinions it seems and FedEx is nothing to do with the US Postal Service. – Paulie_D May 6 '17 at 16:24
  • The title is a bit clickbaity. Even if it were referencing Fantastic Four, just referencing the event wouldn't mean Marvel would have the rights to it. Deadpool can reference Samuel L. Jackson in an eyepatch, but that doesn't mean Fox owns Nick Fury. – Stevoisiak May 26 '17 at 3:30
12

Well, the Fantastic Four rights aren't reverting to Marvel, so I'd say the answer is no. As recently as last November Marvel President Kevin Feige called the idea of getting the F4 rights back "an impossibility at this juncture". As far as I know, nothing has changed on that front in the past 6 months.

As far as Lee's cameo, it's possible that he was a Fed-EX agent more than once in his "career" -- if a disguise works well enough, why not keep using it? Even if he was talking about Civil War, Marvel's Easter Eggs rarely follow their canon timeline as much as they should, and often get sloppily ret-conned away later -- the "totally not Adam Warlock's cocoon" from Guardians vol. 1, or Stephen Strange discussing a case about "totally not Rhodes" accident are two other examples. If pressed, Marvel will probably do the same with Lee's comment.

UPDATE: Marvel has done the same with Lee's comment:

And Stan Lee in the movie says, ‘That time I was the Fed Ex guy,’ which is what he is in Civil War. I screwed up; I wasn’t thinking, But I’m going to say that probably Stan Lee used the guise of a Fed Ex guy more than one time.

As far as The Watcher's go, while they did appear in a Fantastic Four series for the first time, that doesn't mean much. F4 is Marvel's oldest comic series. Lots of things appeared there for the first time, but migrated out to become their own thing. When Marvel signed their deal giving Fox rights to the F4 team, they got to pick and choose what did and didn't go with it. Obviously Fox is going to get as much as they can, so they got classic F4 villains like Doom and Silver Surfer, but they didn't get everyone who's ever been in an F4 story. (Namor, for example, is very closely tied up with Reed and Sue's life, but AFAIK Marvel still holds his rights). Uatu has appeared in all kinds of series, including Guardians of the Galaxy, the "Civil War" storyline, and the "Infinity Gauntlet" storyline. It's unlikely that Marvel would have signed over his rights to Fox as part of the F4 deal.

  • Fox doesn't have Namor via the X-Men license? – Stop Harming Monica May 3 '18 at 11:27
  • Fox doesn't have them; it seems like the rights as "fuzzy". Universal bought them a long time ago but never made a movie, so they should have reverted to Marvel by now, and in 2017 one of Marvel's execs claimed that they had. But the latest word (from just a few months ago) is less clear. – KutuluMike May 7 '18 at 13:12
0

Fantastic 4 will very much be like Spiderman in that the studio has x amount of years to make a movie or the rights revert back to Marvel. That being said, Sony still hold the rights to Spiderman and Fox hold the rights to X-Men. Marvel can ask to use the characters and it's highly unlikely that anyone will actually say no, in fact it would be in their best interests to say yes based on how much the superhero genre is worth right now and they would take a percentage of the earnings. I cannot say for absolute certainty that they do not hold the rights however.

  • I fail to see how this answer tries to adress the actual queation in any way. – Napoleon Wilson May 21 '17 at 10:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .