James Gunn reveals film rights to Kang the Conqueror belong to Fox :sadbron:

[Da Rhythm Rebel]

felt like this deserved its own thread.

"Avengers" fans hoping to see one of the team's most iconic villains in a Marvel Studios movie had better brace themselves for this news: Kang the Conqueror's film rights are owned by 20th Century Fox, meaning he won't be showing up in the Marvel Cinematic Universe any time soon.

The news broke as part of a Facebook question and answer session held by "Guardians of the Galaxy"director James Gunn. When asked if the time-traveling menace known as Kang would ever go head-to-head with Star-Lord and his pals, Gunn replied, "Shi'ar and Kang are both owned by Fox. All decisions about who is in GotG2 were made a long time ago."

Kang is a time-traveling tyrant possessed of an arsenal filled with weapons and tech from the 40th century that grants him the ability to take on Earth's mightiest heroes without breaking a sweat. He's traveled back to modern day Earth at a number of different points in his life, which has led to him being known as Rama-Tut, Kang, Immortus and Iron Lad.

This movie rights development throws another curve-ball at those trying to figure out which characters belong to each movie studio. The Shi'ar are owned by Fox, as Gunn revealed, which makes sense considering the fact that they are part of the X-Men family. They debuted in the pages of "Uncanny X-Men" and have mostly dealt with the mutants in their almost forty year history. Kang, on the other hand, has primarily been an Avengers villain and debuted in 1964's "Avengers" #8. Kang's time-traveling nature confuses matters even more, since Rama-Tut debuted in the pages of "Fantastic Four"; his other two identities -- Immortus and Iron Lad -- debuted in "Avengers" comics.

When determining where rights fall, it's been a commonly held belief that they are determined by the series/franchise a character debuted in. This theory has been put the test a lot recently, as "Avengers: Age of Ultron" additions Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch both debuted in "X-Men" and "Daredevil" villain Kingpin debuted in "Amazing Spider-Man." Black Panther and the Inhumans, characters with Marvel Studios films slated for release, also debuted in the pages of "Fantastic Four," as did "Guardians of the Galaxy" villain Ronan the Accuser. How Avengers foe Kang the Conqueror ended up at Fox is yet the latest in a long line of movie rights mysteries.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/a...-of-kang-battling-the-guardians-of-the-galaxy

seriously Kang is one of my favorite villains


but at whoever from Marvel made these deals back in the days with properties and characters going to other studios, that now Marvel can't even use in their own feature films!

 

[AnonymityX1000]

felt like this deserved its own thread.



seriously Kang is one of my favorite villains


but at whoever from Marvel made these deals back in the days with properties and characters going to other studios, that now Marvel can't even use in their own feature films!

If they didn't do the deals there would be no MCU for you to be upset about Kang not being able to be a part of.

 

[Da Rhythm Rebel]

If they didn't do the deals there would be no MCU for you to be upset about Kang not being able to be a part of.

well that's certainly one way to look at it..

but I never considered Kang to be anything but a foe of the Avengers - so not sure how Fox was able to purchase his rights even if it was as Rama Tut or whatever.

I wonder how much it would cost to get him and other characters back? Highly doubtful that Fox has plans for him BUT since they have him they are probably asking for top $$ to get him back...just outta spite

 

[PlayerNinety_Nine]

That's too bad. I'd be highly surprised if the X-Men did a movie with the Shi'ar though. I would think they'd mess with Mr. Sinister before they want that route. Hell - I'd want to see Stryfe before that too.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

well that's certainly one way to look at it..

but I never considered Kang to be anything but a foe of the Avengers - so not sure how Fox was able to purchase his rights even if it was as Rama Tut or whatever.

I wonder how much it would cost to get him and other characters back? Highly doubtful that Fox has plans for him BUT since they have him they are probably asking for top $$ to get him back...just outta spite

They said because he actually appeared in FF4 before being in any Avengers comic.
Do they need him back? Seriously, there are 100s of villians to choose from. Sorry your favorite isn't one of them.

 

[Da Rhythm Rebel]

They said because he actually appeared in FF4 before being in any Avengers comic.
Do they need him back? Seriously, there are 100s of villians to choose from. Sorry your favorite isn't one of them.

Kang, on the other hand, has primarily been an Avengers villain and debuted in 1964's "Avengers" #8. Kang's time-traveling nature confuses matters even more, since Rama-Tut debuted in the pages of "Fantastic Four"; his other two identities -- Immortus and Iron Lad -- debuted in "Avengers" comics.

and yeah the avengers have 100's of villains but...we're talking about Kang...he's kind of important

 

[Tryna Makit]

If Kang shows up in X-men as Rama tut

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Kang, on the other hand, has primarily been an Avengers villain and debuted in 1964's "Avengers" #8. Kang's time-traveling nature confuses matters even more, since Rama-Tut debuted in the pages of "Fantastic Four"; his other two identities -- Immortus and Iron Lad -- debuted in "Avengers" comics.

and yeah the avengers have 100's of villains but...we're talking about Kang...he's kind of important

He was kinda important. If you aren't part of the MCU you lose said importance. Ask the FF4.

 

[Red Shield]

That's surprising, Kang was always an Avengers villain.

 

[jackswstd]

Somebody at Fox needs get a scandal popping off.

 

[Bryan Danielson]

I wonder why their cant be any deals where Marvel just starts buying off certain characters

 

[Return of the Jedi]

I actually always felt like Kang was corny.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

I wonder why their cant be any deals where Marvel just starts buying off certain characters

Hypothetically think of the average Marvel movie, how much does a villain's appearance mean for a movie's bottom line?
That is the highest offer Marvel can offer, otherwise it is not cost effective/doesn't make sense.
Now, how much would you think FOX would charge to an unfriendly competitor for a villain?
Considering all of that how much is an obscure character like Kang the Conquerer worth?

All these considerations we can tell it really isn't even worth it for Marvel or Fox. Just use someone else as a villain.

 

[Bigbigguy]

How the hell does Fox have Kang but not the Inhumans?

Kang has always been an Avengers villain whereas the Inhumans bar Crystal only ever appeared in FF for the most part.

 

[Hersh]

can someone put up official lists of who belongs to who?