Winterfell is Burning Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 I don't think Wolverine ever really fit in the Avengers, so I'm not interested in seeing him there- it was clearly a $$$ move for him (and Spidey too, although there were story reasons for him- it was frankly ridiculous that he hadn't been a long-term member by that point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted August 3, 2015 Author Share Posted August 3, 2015 I'm really amazed that Marvel signed over movie rights to it's characters, especially an entire group of characters, seemingly in perpetuity. Though perhaps it's just for an extraordinarily long time rather than forever, and that timeframe happens to extend well beyond the MCU forseeable horizon. Fox probably got the rights in the late 90's, and it might have a 30 or 40 year lifespan. Does anyone know the broad strokes of the terms of that rights deal between marvel and Fox? Fantastic 4 was possibly going to revert back to Marvel soonish if Fox did nothing with it. The question is, why did Fox think there was still value on the Fantastic Four to the extent they decided to reboot? It's been 9 years since the last F4 movie, so perhaps Fox was on a countdown. If you don't produce anything within 10 years the rights revert to Marvel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 I'm really amazed that Marvel signed over movie rights to it's characters, especially an entire group of characters, seemingly in perpetuity. Though perhaps it's just for an extraordinarily long time rather than forever, and that timeframe happens to extend well beyond the MCU forseeable horizon. Fox probably got the rights in the late 90's, and it might have a 30 or 40 year lifespan. Does anyone know the broad strokes of the terms of that rights deal between marvel and Fox? Fantastic 4 was possibly going to revert back to Marvel soonish if Fox did nothing with it. The question is, why did Fox think there was still value on the Fantastic Four to the extent they decided to reboot? It's been 9 years since the last F4 movie, so perhaps Fox was on a countdown. If you don't produce anything within 10 years the rights revert to Marvel. Not sure about the particulars other than what you mentioned. If Fox doesn't use the property at least once every X amount of years, the rights revert back. Given the overall success of Marvel properties, I have to imagine it's worth it for Fox to retain the rights for leverage, even if the property is less than successful for them. At some point I suspect they would at the very least be looking to sell them back to Marvel rather than give them away by not exercising the license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted August 3, 2015 Author Share Posted August 3, 2015 With X-men I doubt they will let that go. But if this F4 fails to connect with moviegoers they may well be happy to sell it back, if for nothing else than for the MCU to snag some more interesting villains. If the F4 themselves fail I would question whether Marvel/Disney would want the heroes back. I was never really interested in F4 as a comic series, so I'm very much on the fence about seeing this movie. I definitely liked the cast for the first outing better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfell is Burning Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 I'm really amazed that Marvel signed over movie rights to it's characters, especially an entire group of characters, seemingly in perpetuity. Though perhaps it's just for an extraordinarily long time rather than forever, and that timeframe happens to extend well beyond the MCU forseeable horizon. Fox probably got the rights in the late 90's, and it might have a 30 or 40 year lifespan. Does anyone know the broad strokes of the terms of that rights deal between marvel and Fox? Fantastic 4 was possibly going to revert back to Marvel soonish if Fox did nothing with it. The question is, why did Fox think there was still value on the Fantastic Four to the extent they decided to reboot? It's been 9 years since the last F4 movie, so perhaps Fox was on a countdown. If you don't produce anything within 10 years the rights revert to Marvel. Marvel was very close to go bankrupt in the 90's, so they sold movie rights on the cheap to remain afloat. The only reason the Avengers weren't sold off is because they weren't popular enough and no one was interested. With X-men I doubt they will let that go. But if this F4 fails to connect with moviegoers they may well be happy to sell it back, if for nothing else than for the MCU to snag some more interesting villains. If the F4 themselves fail I would question whether Marvel/Disney would want the heroes back. I was never really interested in F4 as a comic series, so I'm very much on the fence about seeing this movie. I definitely liked the cast for the first outing better. The F4 was the book that essentially created the Marvel Universe, so it would be very symbolic and important for Marvel to get them back, specially considering they are planning two films from characters that spun-off their series (inhumans and Black Panther). I strongly doubt we'd ever see an Ant-Man or GotG movie if they had the F4 rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The BlackBear Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 As much as I've tried I can't really find anything on the timeline they need to get the rights back. The Punisher last had a film in 2008 (which I incidentally quite liked) and there were rumours floating around in 2011 they had the rights back. This seems incredibly short time period can only assume they bought them back. But can't find any evidence for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrddin Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 In a way, Fox is the reason we have the MCU today. X-Men kicked off the superhero movies (which was influenced by Blade). Sony continued the trend with Spiderman. It was only then that Marvel decided to take their tier 2 heroes and make them the new tier 1's. *Truly, I never cared about the Avengers growing up. The X-Men were much more interesting, in both characters and stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Confirming what we all suspected... Director confirms Spiderman reboot is not an origin story.I still worry about the concept of Spiderman as a true "kid" as they imply in the story. Perhaps as the Hollywood version of a kid where you have 30 year olds playing high schoolers it might work though. :dunno:I like Spiderman as the young adult/college student that we see in the original trilogy, the AS movies, and the 90's animated series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mother of The Others Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Tony Stark is told he doesn't play well with others, but he does so all the time; it's spiderman who's always been the solo artist in movies who's never been forced to play in a band with others. Also, those movies have always been their own kind of spectacle where they just put on the Spidey Show and don't worry about making it super-plausible or anything, like a bit more of the cartoon flavor carries over into those movies that prevents me from buying in and believing what I'm seeing. It's prevented me from being fully engaged with the Spiderman franchise, despite liking him in toons as a kid. What I'm saying is it might have a jarring effect when you combine Spidey's peanut butter with MCU's current brand of chocolate. Or it might be a great combo like Reece's Pieces, and it might really be a script writer's dream with Spidey dropping verbal bombs all movie long that keep the levity going and the good times flowing. But what I'm foreseeing is a case of clashing styles that may not be fully resovable and in the end he and the avengers would just.... clash. if for nothing else than for the MCU to snag some more interesting villains. If the F4 themselves fail I would question whether Marvel/Disney would want the heroes back. I was never really interested in F4 as a comic series, so I'm very much on the fence about seeing this movie. I definitely liked the cast for the first outing better. Like Spiderman, I believe the F4 have the inherent problem of being so comic-booky, so cartoony, so difficult to turn into a true drama without the viewer snickering, that it's almost prohibitive. How can you "keep it real" and do a heartfelt storyline with a rock man who can't interact with the public? There's no onramp to success there. Just the "whoa is me" thing and wacky jokes await. (The fate of the initial movie). And when you bring them back into the fold and reunite the Four with your other hero franchises that people have already bought into and accept as "real enough to take seriously," ...... you run the risk of losing audiences who can't get over this new source of disbelief, people who suddenly realize they can't take what they're seeing seriously, and are kicked out of the wonderful illusion of reality they were able to enjoy during the Thor & Ironman movies. Bringing a big rock man and a stretchy man and a flamey man into the mix might just..... ahem...... "Doom" the whole thing to being seen as silly again. And in the new movie Why are the new FanFour children? Does it make sense that Reed is underage? I get that the studio wants young audiences to feel like the film is for them by being able to see their own generation onscreen. But won't even teens be looking at this as sort of odd that someone their own age was given facilities by the government when they know damn well that you have to be at least 22 to be granted a scientific research facility in this world. I don't feel confident about having teens save the world, and even though teenage moviegoers won't admit it... neither do they! They know their teen friends are dumb and get wasted on the weekend mostly so that they can come to school and say, "I got so wasted last weekend!" Teens know better than to trust people their own age to save the world, and would feel like they were in much better hands if someone at least 25 years old was wearing that superhero outfit. There. It needed to be said, and now it has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 And in the new movie Why are the new FanFour children? Does it make sense that Reed is underage? I get that the studio wants young audiences to feel like the film is for them by being able to see their own generation onscreen. But won't even teens be looking at this as sort of odd that someone their own age was given facilities by the government when they know damn well that you have to be at least 22 to be granted a scientific research facility in this world. I don't feel confident about having teens save the world, and even though teenage moviegoers won't admit it... neither do they! They know their teen friends are dumb and get wasted on the weekend mostly so that they can come to school and say, "I got so wasted last weekend!" Teens know better than to trust people their own age to save the world, and would feel like they were in much better hands if someone at least 25 years old was wearing that superhero outfit. There. It needed to be said, and now it has been. Uh the actors range in age from 28 to 32. Unless I've missed something and they've announced the characters are teenagers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mother of The Others Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Apparently the camera subtracts 10 years. They needed to hire 40 year olds! The Reed they've got looks like he's got baby fat in his cheeks still. They've got an Invisible Girl rather than an Invisible Woman, the fire guy looks 19. Rock guy looks a bit more imposing in his costume than Chiklis did, so that's good, but the impression I get from the ads is still 4 Rebellious Teens Spring Breaking (out of prison). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfell is Burning Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I don't see how a "rock man" is less plausible that a man that turns green and strong when he gets angry, or that the Norse Gods are for real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 I don't see how a "rock man" is less plausible that a man that turns green and strong when he gets angry, or that the Norse Gods are for real. To be fair, the Norse gods aren't real, as in being actual gods, in the MU / MCU. They're just an alien species that the silly Vikings thought were gods. That is of course a highly plausible scenario if ancient human societies were ever visited by aliens. What's less plausible is that Asgardians look totally human in all superficial respects. Actually while I think about it, a dude who gets big, muscly, enraged, and green when he gets angry IS more plausible than a person who has been turned into sentient rock. At least the green dude looks otherwise completely human aside from the green and abnormally large bit. However I prefer She-Hulk as in it being a permanent transformation, and She-Hulk is in full control of her emotional and intellectual faculties; well maybe not full control on the emotional side. I would be very happy for the MCU to pivot away from Hulk and bring in She-Hulk. Phase 4 mayhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The BlackBear Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Actually while I think about it, a dude who gets big, muscly, enraged, and green when he gets angry IS more plausible than a person who has been turned into sentient rock. At least the green dude looks otherwise completely human aside from the green and abnormally large bit. However I prefer She-Hulk as in it being a permanent transformation, and She-Hulk is in full control of her emotional and intellectual faculties; well maybe not full control on the emotional side. I would be very happy for the MCU to pivot away from Hulk and bring in She-Hulk. Phase 4 mayhaps? She-Hulk isn't permanent. The difference is Jen likes being a Hulk, Bruce represses it, which is why there is the utter disconnect in personality. She appears less regularly in her human form, as she doesn't have the set backs that Bruce has with it, but can change back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Not sure about the current status quo but while there have been points at which Jen could change back and forth at will, I'm fairly sure there have also been times at which she was stuck as She-Hulk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfell is Burning Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 To be fair, the Norse gods aren't real, as in being actual gods, in the MU / MCU. They're just an alien species that the silly Vikings thought were gods. That is of course a highly plausible scenario if ancient human societies were ever visited by aliens. What's less plausible is that Asgardians look totally human in all superficial respects. It actually has never been explained in the MCU how the Asgardian speak English, or understand humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 It actually has never been explained in the MCU how the Asgardian speak English, or understand humans.I would say magic... but since magic is just super advanced technology, I'm just gonna say they have a universal translator thingie like on Star Trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyanidePie Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Looks like Kraven will be the villain for the new Spider-Man movie. If they pull from Kraven's Last Hunt, then I am instantly on board for this. But they won't, so I'm not. http://screenrant.com/spider-man-2017-reboot-kraven-hunter/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mother of The Others Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Back to whether magic has a scientific basis underlying it.... uh, it's best for magic if that remains just a theory. Science guys would "believe" magic is scientifically explainable, but can't ever prove it. Because the reason it's called magic is it's beyond our abitily to apply science to it. Actually proving it's explainable would tank magic's stock price. I like the idea that there's also extreme magic pouring in through our universe's busted seams, in other words it appears to defy physics because it really does exist outside of physics and is here to flaunt itself in the face of Creation as something Other that's been sprinkled on top of this universe like the sprinkles on a donut, or the maple topping of a maple bar. (mmmmm, donuts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyanidePie Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 It's probably just midi-chlorians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.