Inside Universal Forums

Welcome to the Inside Universal Forums! Register a free account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members and unlock our forums features!

  • Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.

Disney/FOX Acquisition Thread

If this deal goes through, my opinion that it would have negative consequences for Comcast as well as the Fox properties and entertainment industry as a whole.

1) It would be twice in the row that Comcast's Universal theme parks would have to pay for a property owned by the House of Mouse (Marvel Super Hero Island at Islands of Adventure, Marvel's Spider-Man at USJ, and The Simpsons Land at USF and USH).

2) You won't likely see CBMs like Deadpool and Logan made under Disney anymore due to being raunchy, violent R-rated content. I'm not saying Disney making R-rated movies is not plausible, but unlike other major film studios, Disney hasn't released an R-rating movie since 2011, after selling off Miramax and reduced Touchstone Pictures of that of a production company. People might point out Marvel's Netflix shows, but Marvel Television produces them, not Marvel Studios. It's well-known fact that Marvel Television and Marvel Studios don't get along well despite being under the same roof and Marvel Television subcontracted Netflix to make the shows (that's why MCU and Netflix's Marvel shows made no mention of each other). Disney's MCU nowadays are aimed to be family-friendly with generic and oversaturated plots on the cinematic screen with the intent of selling the merchandises families and kids want. It's on Disney's DNA like it has always in the past 90 years.

3) American Horror Story, a Fox's property, couldn't be used for HHN anymore unless it's shown to be grandfathered in.

4) Universal theme parks would have to license more properties, especially for the 3rd undeveloped theme park in Orlando.

5) It would make Disney far more powerful and too big, giving them more leverage over the entertainment industry (e.g. by threatening independent-film studios and major studios which doesn't get the chance), given its recent behavior towards local theaters for the Last Jedi and the Los Angeles Times which exposes Disney's questionable or immoral leverage over the city of Anaheim (that's why Disney blocked LA Times from screening the movie in attempt to silence free press).

6) Much of Fox's properties such as Predator, Alien, Die Hard, Family Guy, Apes, The Simpsons, 24, King of the Hill, American Horror Story, American Crime Story, Bob's Burger, Archer, etc, are not suitable for Disney theme parks due to its mature and adult-oriented content. Disney parks are ALWAYS supposed to be family-friendly, that's why they don't have a HHN similiar to Universal's HHN and Knott's Scary Farm.
But suppose we switch it around and see what happens if Comcast actually succeeds instead.

1) It would simplify the theme park rights for The Simpsons

2) It would continue to allow Fox to make R-rated X-Men movies for possibly unlimited time should Comcast acquires the character rights without restrictions. It would put Universal back on the comic book movie trend since 2008.

3) The distribution rights to Star Wars — Episode 4: A New Hope will be held by Comcast. This could be seen as some trolling to Disney and hurt the Mouse's chances to get all Star Wars movies under its roof. Can you imagine the pain of negotiating when the anniversary is coming up and the like?

4) It gives Universal Studios many of the valuable Fox's IP to develop movies, more TV valuable shows (that is currently lacks), and using them for the theme parks and their expansions without having to obtain so much properties from 3rd party companies.

5) Comcast would likely to have Fox and Universal stay seperate and Fox would be part of NBCUniversal Filmed Entertainment Group. Maye a joint Universal-Fox intro in the movies would be good if Universal gets a chance to distribute their movies.

6) Comcast would keep the directors in place since Fox Searchlight gives them a chance who were declined so many times, even Disney.​

As much as I love Disney, if given the only choice between Disney and Comcast (as poop as they are), I rather Comcast get it instead of the big bloated asset Disney. It would make the competition between Comcast and Disney much innovative, after how the success of Universal's Harry Potter turned out, which forces Disney to develop innovative rides like Avatar and the upcoming Star Wars Land. Disney being too big by acquiring so many popular brands is just too much and won't be good for the entertainment industry in the long run.

I agree with almost all of this. I would prefer a sale to a company that doesn't already own a movie studio, but if the choice has to be Disney or Comcast, I'd pick Comcast.

I don't want either to happen, though.
 
Disney's questionable or immoral leverage over the city of Anaheim
If Disney has such control over Anaheim, then why won't the city of Anaheim let them build the new parking garage and garden bridge over to the resort? Disney was counting on that for SWL opening, now they will assuredly miss that opening date, meaning that parking will be a bigger consistent cluster than Disneyland has ever seen.
 
I agree with almost all of this. I would prefer a sale to a company that doesn't already own a movie studio, but if the choice has to be Disney or Comcast, I'd pick Comcast.

I don't want either to happen, though.
Yeah, I think the problem is that the Hollywood business model is completely broken.

Netflix will purchase around 100+ new movies a year by next year. That's basically equivalent to the entire production of the big 6 studios. And Netflix is going to produce 2-3 "event/blockbuster" type films a year at least in the $50-100 million cost range. That doesn't even get to Amazon or Apple and others which will be plowing billions into movies/tv production soon enough.

Nobody knows what to do except try to bring together bigger franchise films and focus more on animated films. That's really all you can do, but in the long run, we're likely to see a significant reduction from the 6 major studios down to 3 or 4.

Look at Sony or Paramount for example. Are they even really qualified to be called major studios nowadays when they each really only have 1 major franchise (Spiderman for Sony and Transformers for Paramount) and a few smaller franchises between them?

And the reason Fox is selling is because of all this: look at how poorly the past Aliens and Apes movies did this year. Apes did $200m less than its predecessor and Alien Covenant did $160m less than Prometheus. That's 2 of their major franchises taking big hits at the box office. Then look at X-Men which has just lost Jackman and has seen X-Men struggle at the box office with Apocalypse taking in $200m less than Days of Future Past. They tried to make Independence Day a trilogy but the 2nd film flopped.

Combine that with Universal taking away DreamWorks (which guaranteed Fox around 2 major animated movies each year), and Fox is basically gambling the whole company on X-Men spinoffs (Deadpool sequels, Cable, Gambit, and the rest) as well as Avatar sequels (which nobody has any idea how they'll do at $1 billion cost for the 4 sequels).
 
Yeah, I think the problem is that the Hollywood business model is completely broken.

Netflix will purchase around 100+ new movies a year by next year. That's basically equivalent to the entire production of the big 6 studios. And Netflix is going to produce 2-3 "event/blockbuster" type films a year at least in the $50-100 million cost range. That doesn't even get to Amazon or Apple and others which will be plowing billions into movies/tv production soon enough.

Nobody knows what to do except try to bring together bigger franchise films and focus more on animated films. That's really all you can do, but in the long run, we're likely to see a significant reduction from the 6 major studios down to 3 or 4.

Look at Sony or Paramount for example. Are they even really qualified to be called major studios nowadays when they each really only have 1 major franchise (Spiderman for Sony and Transformers for Paramount) and a few smaller franchises between them?

And the reason Fox is selling is because of all this: look at how poorly the past Aliens and Apes movies did this year. Apes did $200m less than its predecessor and Alien Covenant did $160m less than Prometheus. That's 2 of their major franchises taking big hits at the box office. Then look at X-Men which has just lost Jackman and has seen X-Men struggle at the box office with Apocalypse taking in $200m less than Days of Future Past. They tried to make Independence Day a trilogy but the 2nd film flopped.

Combine that with Universal taking away DreamWorks (which guaranteed Fox around 2 major animated movies each year), and Fox is basically gambling the whole company on X-Men spinoffs (Deadpool sequels, Cable, Gambit, and the rest) as well as Avatar sequels (which nobody has any idea how they'll do at $1 billion cost for the 4 sequels).

Don't count out Fox's assets yet. They still own a majority of Roger and Hammerstein rights as well as quite a few other musicals in addition to majority of Mel Brooks film library which may prove handy here soon especially with the play/musical resurgence going on. Film to stage adaptations are the new hot thing and a big money maker for studios as a hit can provide income for years to come...just look at Wicked for Universal and Lion King for Disney.
 
Don't count out Fox's assets yet. They still own a majority of Roger and Hammerstein rights as well as quite a few other musicals in addition to majority of Mel Brooks film library which may prove handy here soon especially with the play/musical resurgence going on. Film to stage adaptations are the new hot thing and a big money maker for studios as a hit can provide income for years to come...just look at Wicked for Universal and Lion King for Disney.
True, but as far as movie franchise strategies go, only really Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros appear to have enough franchises to thrive even as Netflix/Prime/Apple/etc. hollow out the lower budget side of the market.

That's in part why I think Universal has more riding on Nintendo movie rights than even Nintendo does. Mario can survive another movie flop much like Activision-Blizzard took their movie rights back after the Warcraft flop, but Illumination needs those movies to become a franchise that it can build on for years to come as it shifts towards a 2 movies a year slate by 2020-2022.
 
I don't get how someone could think a merge with Disney is bad yet a Comcast merger is great. They're both bad because one studio will control more of the market.
 
True, but as far as movie franchise strategies go, only really Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros appear to have enough franchises to thrive even as Netflix/Prime/Apple/etc. hollow out the lower budget side of the market.

That's in part why I think Universal has more riding on Nintendo movie rights than even Nintendo does. Mario can survive another movie flop much like Activision-Blizzard took their movie rights back after the Warcraft flop, but Illumination needs those movies to become a franchise that it can build on for years to come as it shifts towards a 2 movies a year slate by 2020-2022.

I think they aren't as worried about family IPs for Illumination, Illumination has a lot of optioned properties they have not yet used for franchise potential. I think Nintendo film rights open the door to others to trust Universal with their properties in the way that Harry Potter and the first Universal COOL opened the doors for other companies into letting Universal licenses their properties and trusting them to care. Just like how James Cameron went to Universal before Disney for Pandora.

As for franchises, Universal Brand development franchise line up is heavy on standalones, kid/family films, and fantasy whereas their television lineup has grown heavy on thrillers, horrors, superheros, and syfy lately.

Like the only "adult" franchise films on the development lineup are the upcoming Purge and Fast and Furious films. The rest are kid/family films (Curious George, School of Good and Evil, Sing 2, Trolls 2, Boss Baby 2, etc).

I don't get how someone could think a merge with Disney is bad yet a Comcast merger is great. They're both bad because one studio will control more of the market.

Disney is bad in the sense they can add more stipulations on film exhibitors that they have to show this movie for this long which they have already been doing with Star Wars and Marvel films which then pushes out smaller films and raises the prices of films due to the fact cinemas end up losing way more money because they have to keep showing Disney films for 8 weeks when by week five attendance dropped off and the theatre isn't making profit. And if they do break that contract, Disney can refuse to give that cinema access to their films costing them easy revenue for certain films.

Comcast would have to divest some asset and in addition, they have not exhibited that bullish behavior in the film areas. As much as Comcast cable costumer service is not good, NBCU is ran completely differently which people need to take into account.
 
Disney is bad in the sense they can add more stipulations on film exhibitors that they have to show this movie for this long which they have already been doing with Star Wars and Marvel films which then pushes out smaller films and raises the prices of films due to the fact cinemas end up losing way more money because they have to keep showing Disney films for 8 weeks when by week five attendance dropped off and the theatre isn't making profit. And if they do break that contract, Disney can refuse to give that cinema access to their films costing them easy revenue for certain films.

Comcast would have to divest some asset and in addition, they have not exhibited that bullish behavior in the film areas. As much as Comcast cable costumer service is not good, NBCU is ran completely differently which people need to take into account.
Disney has literally never done this. Keeping Star Wars in the biggest auditorium for four weeks and additional screens for two weeks is the most extreme they've gotten so far, and they seem to have dropped the latter for The Last Jedi. Theaters will boycott Disney if they ever go as far as eight weeks.

Additionally, Disney can diversify their slate with Fox. They don't have much resembling Fox's output, especially on the independent front. Comcast has basically no need for Fox. It'd be operating like New Line at WB, and Searchlight would get shuttered because Focus serves the exact same purpose. At least with Disney, the studios will probably remain intact. I'm not a fan of this deal regardless, but Disney is the lesser of two evils here IMO
 
Disney has literally never done this. Keeping Star Wars in the biggest auditorium for four weeks and additional screens for two weeks is the most extreme they've gotten so far, and they seem to have dropped the latter for The Last Jedi. Theaters will boycott Disney if they ever go as far as eight weeks.

Additionally, Disney can diversify their slate with Fox. They don't have much resembling Fox's output, especially on the independent front. Comcast has basically no need for Fox. It'd be operating like New Line at WB, and Searchlight would get shuttered because Focus serves the exact same purpose. At least with Disney, the studios will probably remain intact. I'm not a fan of this deal regardless, but Disney is the lesser of two evils here IMO

Not everything is about film. Can we stop thinking all of these companies do is film and nothing else?

Disney still has touchstone which is Fox Searchlight. Comcast doesn't want Fox for the films, they want Fox for the television/distribution network and the 30% of hulu. That would give Comcast majority share when they no longer would be a silent partner in regards to hulu and the operations as the restrictions are being lifted beginning of next year. Comcast wants the production deals that come with FOX which would bring Matt Groening, Ryan Murphy, Dan Fogelman, and Seth McFarlane into the fold as they have exclusive production deals with Fox which could help create shows for Syfy and USA to help with their sales to affialate service increasing their value.

On the TV side, the aggregate of broadcast and cable nets, think about the real revenue drivers there of continued growth in retrans, the ability, given the breadth of our channels, both cable and broadcast and our sports and news packages to continue to drive strong affiliate fee growth, which as you know, this year is the year where we just re-signed a lot of affiliate deals at the beginning of this year, end of last year and that’s rolling through. We will talk about that more later, I am sure. And the quality of our content flowing through the many content licensing opportunities that we have in this interesting world of lots of different options, so that’s TV.
When you actually put the quality behind that, NBC has just finished the 2016-2017 season as #1 in prime time for the fourth year in a row. And we are #1 again. We have got big nights in ‘18. We’ve got the Olympics. We’ve got the Super Bowl. We’ve got, on Telemundo, Spanish-language World Cup. Telemundo itself, won weekday prime, the season this year. So there’s that. And on the Cable Nets, The Sinner was the #1 new cable show on cable television and other proof points are just how well NBC’s been doing and the like. So there’s a lot of good underlying quality in what our TV businesses are doing, which rolls into the advertising story as I just said.

NBCU International is Universal's biggest priority right now. Increasing their ability to sell shows internationally is a huge deal and boosts their impact around the world. Fox has that already built with Sky and Star which Comcast wants.

Anyways it looks like Comcast is looking and has found something better based on the conference call that occured yesterday. They are looking more for things that add on to what they have not necessarily fold into current operations.
John Hodulik

Got it. So does the move or maybe increasing focus on D2C increase the need for scale in the content business? You knew I’d get to M&A eventually.

Mike Cavanagh

Sure. I would say no, in the sense that what matters our focus is on quality content. We have got plenty, obviously. We got very significant capacity, and we can invest more in our content production capacity, but what we are most focused on is that we have quality. Quality content is what’s is going to be the coin of the realm, I would say, more than scale.
On the M&A side, I don’t want to comment on anybody else’s deals or the ones that are speculated out there. I would just kind of offer a few thoughts. For us, we have said repeatedly, and I will say it again, and hopefully it’s very consistent with everything I have said thus far, we really like the collection of businesses that we have. We think they are performing well with tremendous momentum, great management team lots of opportunities to continue to drive growth in these businesses. And so we are quite optimistic about the portfolio we have, and we don’t see a strategic gap that would require us to go fix a strategic deficit in any way. On the same by the same token, it’s our job to evaluate and consider and see if despite the fact that there is not a strategic necessity, are there things out there that we could do that would create value for shareholders. So I don’t think any of that’s a surprise, but it’s a fair state of the play of how we think about the world.
And when that comes back to capital returns strategy, I think it’s again, no change. We want to its three pieces to the puzzle. It’s invest in the businesses through CapEx and innovation as we have described. It’s spend money on bolt-on acquisitions, and whether it’s the Japan Park or DreamWorks Animation. So we spend some amount of our capital. It ebbs and flows, obviously, on things like that. And I think doing those two things well, which I would put in the category of investing in the businesses we have properly as a priority, also leaves us in a place that we can meet our third and equal priority, which is strong returns of capital to shareholders.
 
Most likely the X-Men would end up rebooted and integrated into the Avengers in a similar way to Spiderman or Guardians of the Galaxy.

There'd be an MCU X-Men followed by a sequel and then they'd show up in Avengers 5 or 6 depending on how their timeline works.

They'd use some kind of supervillain like Galactus to bring the X-Men back into the Avengers like how Thanos and the Infinity Gems brought the Guardians into Avengers.

Re: X-Men- I would find it highly unlikely it all blends together. Once MCU is over, it's over. If the big 4 aren't on board- and we already know Chris Evans is counting his days so he can leave- then it's over.

I'd much rather see X-Men go a darker route. It can certainly have the "Dark Knight Trilogy" vibe to it if they'll let it. Take Logan, for example. That, in my opinion, was the best superhero movie that has come out so far- by a large margin. It was smart, mature, emotional- and downright devastating. I could also see Deadpool arguably being in the conversation as the best- there due to its originality. But something about the grit of Logan was very appealing.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely that it would be appeal to the mass market (although Dark Knight certainly did). Most people like thin plot lines with big booms and flashy action sequences.
 
Not everything is about film. Can we stop thinking all of these companies do is film and nothing else?
Film is their bread and butter (maybe not Comcast but domestically films are undoubtedly the drawing factor). Why should we stop talking about it?

Disney still has touchstone which is Fox Searchlight.
Touchstone has been dead for years. The only non-Dreamworks thing they distributed since 2011 was Gnomeo and Juliet, whose godawful looking sequel is now at Paramount; The Wind Rises, a Studio Ghibli film; and Strange Magic, a nightmare from George Lucas they had to get rid of.

Comcast doesn't want Fox for the films, they want Fox for the television/distribution network and the 30% of hulu. That would give Comcast majority share when they no longer would be a silent partner in regards to hulu and the operations as the restrictions are being lifted beginning of next year.
Fair point, but Disney also wants that.

Comcast wants the production deals that come with FOX which would bring Matt Groening, Ryan Murphy, Dan Fogelman, and Seth McFarlane into the fold as they have exclusive production deals with Fox which could help create shows for Syfy and USA to help with their sales to affialate service increasing their value.
None of those people are that valuable save for Ryan Murphy (who's even a bit questionable given stuff like Scream Queens bombed). The Orville is doing fine by Fox's standards but would be gone if it was any other network. Family Guy isn't as lucrative as it once was either. The same thing goes for The Simpsons. Dan Fogelman has This is Us under his belt, but the rest of his television history is weak.

NBCU International is Universal's biggest priority right now. Increasing their ability to sell shows internationally is a huge deal and boosts their impact around the world. Fox has that already built with Sky and Star which Comcast wants.

Again, Disney wants those things too, and they benefit from new domestic output on the film side. Comcast wouldn't get that benefit
 
Film is their bread and butter (maybe not Comcast but domestically films are undoubtedly the drawing factor). Why should we stop talking about it?


Touchstone has been dead for years. The only non-Dreamworks thing they distributed since 2011 was Gnomeo and Juliet, whose godawful looking sequel is now at Paramount; The Wind Rises, a Studio Ghibli film; and Strange Magic, a nightmare from George Lucas they had to get rid of.


Fair point, but Disney also wants that.


None of those people are that valuable save for Ryan Murphy (who's even a bit questionable given stuff like Scream Queens bombed). The Orville is doing fine by Fox's standards but would be gone if it was any other network. Family Guy isn't as lucrative as it once was either. The same thing goes for The Simpsons. Dan Fogelman has This is Us under his belt, but the rest of his television history is weak.

Comcast bread and butter is becoming television. Show ownership is huge hints the reason why most studios want to create shows in house nowadays. TV shows in general equal around the same amount as a feature film with longer term profits. Hints why major film actors are going back to television instead of films because there is a lot more money to be made.

And whose fault is it Touchstone died. Iger could've prioritized production for touchstone and bought up indie films but he chose not to.

Producers are huge. There is a reason why the system has changed and every studio tries to lock down producers so their competition don't get rights for shows that they can then sell to them later as well as use those producers during the upfronts as a way to increase ad fees during certain shows. Ryan Murphy has had his flops (Scream Queens and The New Normal) but he also had his massive successes (American Crime Story, Feud, American Horror Story, Nip/Tuck, Glee, etc). Licensing for Simpsons and syndication fees that Fox gets for all the family guy shows and Matt Groening is ridiculous. Its easy return of investment. All of those producers get decent ad buys during their shows.
 
Disney has literally never done this. Keeping Star Wars in the biggest auditorium for four weeks and additional screens for two weeks is the most extreme they've gotten so far, and they seem to have dropped the latter for The Last Jedi. Theaters will boycott Disney if they ever go as far as eight weeks.

Additionally, Disney can diversify their slate with Fox. They don't have much resembling Fox's output, especially on the independent front. Comcast has basically no need for Fox. It'd be operating like New Line at WB, and Searchlight would get shuttered because Focus serves the exact same purpose. At least with Disney, the studios will probably remain intact. I'm not a fan of this deal regardless, but Disney is the lesser of two evils here IMO
Here's what I think you're missing: The lower end (indie/genre) sector of movie making has never been more vibrant because there's so much demand for that content. It's not just Sony ScreenGems/Fox Searchlight/Focus Features, but Amazon and Netflix are now bigger than anyone. Annapurna and MGM are becoming distributors at that end as well.

It's about blockbusters and franchises that generate the most box office.

If Disney buys Fox's assets, then Disney will likely control 40% of all box office dollars for most years in the future. WB and Universal would be distant 2nd/3rd at around 15-20% each.

Why? Because Disney would control at least 50% of all top movie franchises.

That's why I think it's a bigger deal for Disney to buy Fox even though you're right that there's overlap between Comcast and Fox in the indie/genre market. But that overlap isn't as meaningful given that there's far more competition at the lower end with new entrants like Amazon and Netflix outspending everyone in that sector of the market.
 
If Disney has such control over Anaheim, then why won't the city of Anaheim let them build the new parking garage and garden bridge over to the resort? Disney was counting on that for SWL opening, now they will assuredly miss that opening date, meaning that parking will be a bigger consistent cluster than Disneyland has ever seen.

My point is that Disney chose to banish members of the Los Angeles Times for seeing the Last Jedi simply because of its reporting of what Disney does behind the curtains with Anaheim officials. This is completely unethical and unacceptable behavior for such a lovable and most powerful company in all of the United States, the company that brought out of our childhood dreams and bringing joy to millions of Americans. I don't think any major studio would block the members of the free press to their screenings in response to what they do behind the curtains. Another example of Disney's bullish behavior in the entertainment area and that's why I don't believe a Disney-Fox deal is a good idea.
 
Re: X-Men- I would find it highly unlikely it all blends together. Once MCU is over, it's over. If the big 4 aren't on board- and we already know Chris Evans is counting his days so he can leave- then it's over.

I'd much rather see X-Men go a darker route. It can certainly have the "Dark Knight Trilogy" vibe to it if they'll let it. Take Logan, for example. That, in my opinion, was the best superhero movie that has come out so far- by a large margin. It was smart, mature, emotional- and downright devastating. I could also see Deadpool arguably being in the conversation as the best- there due to its originality. But something about the grit of Logan was very appealing.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely that it would be appeal to the mass market (although Dark Knight certainly did). Most people like thin plot lines with big booms and flashy action sequences.
They're doing a soft-reset after Avengers 4 of MCU; it'll continue the universe, but most likely they'll just put Iron Man/Captain America/Black Widow and maybe Thor to rest in Avengers 3-4.

Basically, the Avengers team for Avengers 5-6 will be led by Captain Marvel and feature Black Panther, Doctor Strange, War Machine (probably), Hulk, Scarlet Witch, and whoever else wants to extend their contracts. Guardians of the Galaxy will probably get a soft-reset after Volume 3 ends that trilogy if they want to take it in a different direction.

They can rope X-Men into that soft-reset to set up Avengers 5-6 using mutants/Galactus. Also, there's a very natural tie-in there with Scarlet Witch as the daughter of Magneto; they might use that to bring the X-men in...
 
They're doing a soft-reset after Avengers 4 of MCU; it'll continue the universe, but most likely they'll just put Iron Man/Captain America/Black Widow and maybe Thor to rest in Avengers 3-4.

Basically, the Avengers team for Avengers 5-6 will be led by Captain Marvel and feature Black Panther, Doctor Strange, War Machine (probably), Hulk, Scarlet Witch, and whoever else wants to extend their contracts. Guardians of the Galaxy will probably get a soft-reset after Volume 3 ends that trilogy if they want to take it in a different direction.

They can rope X-Men into that soft-reset to set up Avengers 5-6 using mutants/Galactus. Also, there's a very natural tie-in there with Scarlet Witch as the daughter of Magneto; they might use that to bring the X-men in...

Sounds terrible...
 
Honestly, a way I can see X-Men intergrated, is from aftereffects from the battles of Infinity War (and presumably Infinity Gauntlet) causing people all around the world to start getting mutations, and with government programs starting up to prevent if the Avengers turns.

It could then lead the way to Origins for Wolverine, Mystique, Professor X and Magneto and more mutants with more possible ease, with it being different than the Singer/Fox X-Men universes.
 
Top