At the same time, Marvel has cancelled a number of joint ventures with "outside" (ie, non-Disney) companies (W&TXM with Nick, EMH with CN, etc) with the intent that their "successors" , if any, would be done "in house" with other Disney subsidiaries. The strategy is pure bean-counter politics. Deny profits to a competitor even if that means denying some profits to yourself as well. Just so long as you are confident that you are in a strong position without those profits. Simplified example: Company A does joint media project with Company B. The project is a big hit and very profitable. Company A is otherwise in good shape, so their share of the profits is "gravy". Company B is struggling, and the profits from the joint venture are allowing it to at least "break even". W/o the profits, Company B is losing money. Company A knows two things at this point: 1) there is a market for the venture and 2) losing the venture's profits puts Company B at a SEVERE disadvantage in terms of attracting investors. In corporation think, the obvious thing for A to do is cancel the joint venture and either: 1) introduce a follow-on venture done entirely "in house", which allows A to capture ALL of the profits or 2) simply sit on the venture and take a survivable hit so long as that hit hurts B more. That is why, for example at Marvel, they canned W&TXM and didn't replace it. The X-universe is actively downplayed in media tie ins because Fox owns the IP rights to most of the X-universe. Marvel doesn't want Fox to get good publicity and/or viewership based on Marvel's promotion of X-properties in multi-media. Mavel doesn't get the profits from a successful X-show, but they really don't need them as the film franchises are making money hand over fist.