|
Mr_Zombie posted:Has it been mentioned that Fox are apparently looking to do a shared universe in some capacity with the Fantastic Four reboot and future X-Men movies? Hm. In the right hands this might be cool. One group consists of superheroes beloved by the world and the other hated. What does it say? Do humans hate the thought of genetics or nature implying their time has passed and here come the mutants versus those that got their powers by accident? Everyone loves astronauts and adventurers and that's what the FF were in a way. The FF are public and Reed I'm sure has contributed to society whereas the X-Men sort of hide out, no one necessarily knows who mutants are, and have they contributed on the same scale? I dunno.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
mind the walrus posted:*shudder*, that reeks of an executive looking at the Avengers' profits and saying "gently caress what can we do that's like that?" I don't know how it'd be any good, as the FF and X-Men don't work that well together, and there's very little reason for them to intersect beyond "WORLD IN PERIL WORLD IN PERIL" crap. I don't know, the more tenuous the link, the more optimistic I am that something watchable is going to emerge from it. Somewhere along the line someone will have to actually get CREATIVE with the properties to shoehorn them into the same movie, so maybe we won't get another terrible cookie cutter romp like Marvel's The Avengers. Maybe Spiderman mutates. Maybe Cyclops is Galactus' dad. Anything but having another bad guy appear to have another pointless back-and-forth with a bunch of wisecracking cardboard cut outs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
^^^^ We are not going to agree on anything. FYI. Part of the entire superhero film movement of the last 10 years has been to translate the heroes to the big screen in their most iconic iterations first before "getting creative" with them and making pointless changes. That doesn't mean make something boring, even if it is kind-of cookie-cutter. That's what made the Avengers enjoyable-- it said "We're not reinventing the wheel, instead we're going to make a really good wheel." Part of the genius of the Fantastic Four's origin is that Reed was an arrogant prick who was so humbled by the shocking reality that he turned his family into monsters, that he immediately went on the offensive with merchandise and marketing and public transparency so that his family couldn't become some military black ops project stolen away in the night, or ostracized like the mutants were/are. By making them into a giant larger-than-life 24/7 carnival of adventure, he managed to give them back the most normal lives they could have had given the circumstances, even if it did mean calling himself "Mr. Fantastic" and trading loads of privacy for it. If any new Fantastic Four movie doesn't explore that side of things, it will have failed to realize one of the most logical and human arcs in the entire origin. Something far deeper and more engaging than "Oh poo poo I look ugly now" or "Woohoo being on fire all the time is cool!." mind the walrus fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Why would anyone even want to see the cluster gently caress that is the X-Men movie universe or the tonally incompatible Spider-man universe co-exist with each other/Marvel's venture?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:Being able to yell "I know that thing" is a huge selling point for comic book stuff even if it's terrible and irrelevant. I am no film executive but I have to imagine there is value to the word-of-mouth of a cameo like that. Just thinking about all the attention that comes from something to simple as the shwarma scene.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
mfaley posted:I am no film executive but I have to imagine there is value to the word-of-mouth of a cameo like that. Just thinking about all the attention that comes from something to simple as the shwarma scene. The question you have to ask is, "Who would see the film because they heard about a Spider-man cameo who wouldn't otherwise see it?" Or, alternatively, "Who would see the film a second time because of the Spider-man cameo?" I have to imagine the answer to both is, "Almost no one." It's a movie with Iron Man, the Hulk, Captain America, Thor, Nick Fury, Black Widow, etc. If Spider-man is enough to get you to see a movie, you're already seeing this movie. And a 5 second cameo won't be the reason you see it again. There's zero reason for Marvel to spend any money to make it happen. If it could happen for free? Sure, why not? But sharing any of the profits with a competitor for something that gains them nothing is never going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:The question you have to ask is, "Who would see the film because they heard about a Spider-man cameo who wouldn't otherwise see it?" Or, alternatively, "Who would see the film a second time because of the Spider-man cameo?" I have to imagine the answer to both is, "Almost no one." They should go the "Clue" route and come out with 5 different endings, all with a different cameo, that way people are encouraged to see it again. Ending 1 - Leftover big bad henchman tries to get away unnoticed, you hear "SNIKT" and he drops dead, "Sorry bub..." Ending 2 - Leftover big bad henchman tries to get away unnoticed, you hear "Henchmen don't get to live!" and see Deadpool blow him away, Ending 3 - Leftover big bad henchman tries to get away unnoticed, you hear "BY THE HOARY HOSTS OF HOGGOTH, EVIL SHALL NOT TRIUMPH THIS DAY!", Ending 4 - Leftover big bad henchman tries to get away unnoticed, you hear uhhhh Ghost Rider noise and then uhhh a chain hits him. ...I kid, but I'd probably go twice. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:All I care about for Thor 2 is that Loki dies in it. Because then we can get Thor 3: Journey Into Darkness with Kid Loki. And before anyone asks, Jack Gleeson for Kid Loki 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:The question you have to ask is, "Who would see the film because they heard about a Spider-man cameo who wouldn't otherwise see it?" Or, alternatively, "Who would see the film a second time because of the Spider-man cameo?" I have to imagine the answer to both is, "Almost no one." I don't disagree with your point. And for the rest of the thread, sorry for the derail. That being said, let me piggy back on what you said. You are correct that no one is going to see a BuzzFeed article about Spiderman showing up in The Avengers and head out to buy a ticket right away. That being said, I work in advertising and I have to imagine that having a cameo like that would create buzz around the movie. More brand awareness = more mindshare = more people seeing the movie. Yada yada yada. Whether that is worth however much Marvel would have to pay to make that happen is anyone's guess. But it's probably not worth it. Okay sorry for the derail!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
mfaley posted:Whether that is worth however much Marvel would have to pay to make that happen is anyone's guess. But it's probably not worth it. It isn't. Honestly, I don't think Marvel give a poo poo about sharing a universe with a Spider-man who isn't their own creation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Superstring posted:Marvel made these deals way back when they were either in or near-bankruptcy. Basically, as long as the studios make movies within a certain time frame, they retain the rights to keep making movies. According to Greg Weisman's Q&A site, the reason why Spectacular Spider-Man no longer exists is due to Sony giving back the animation rights to Spider-Man just to keep the movie rights. They had to chose either animation or movie and the movies gave them the most money. If Disney/Marvel wanted to keep Spectacular Spidey on-air, they'd have to pay Sony because they still own the show. Disney and Marvel know people want the show back but Sony and Disney are pretty big rivals and Disney would never pay Sony to use what is essentially their characters. According to Superhero Hype, Sony now has no choice but to continue making movies for Spider-Man or lose the rights to do so. That's why they had to force Raimi (and the actors who went with him) out and bring in Webb and the others. They had a deadline of July 3rd and had to meet it or Marvel would not have been happy. I'm not sure if this is how it is with Fox though. As for Spider-Man in the Avengers, it may be the same situation. I doubt Disney would let Marvel pay Sony to do anything like that. Though I do recall Avi Arad saying that "anything is possible" when asked about a crossover type thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Hm. If Sony is now backed into the corner where they have to make a Spider-man movie every few years then how about they rethink their approach to it and come up with, like, a 10 film concept and serialize it? Like Harry Potter. It makes them the most money and rather than rebooting it every few years and running things into the ground, they can think long term and how to approach movie making. EDIT: And Avi says a lot of things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:Roger Rabbit is the one reason why I think its remotely possible that a crossover could happen by Avenges 3. I don't doubt that it's possible, but even with Roger Rabbit we didn't have Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse going head to head at the time with their own huge tentpole movies. And of course, both of them were not the stars of Roger Rabbit either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Does anyone with more business acumen than me have any insight into this ridiculous ticketing dispute Disney and AMC (and the other theater chains) are having over Iron Man 3? Someone somewhere in the process is dragging their feet and losing dozens of pre-sold ticket sales. How hard is it to physically sit these people down in a conference room and talk this thing out?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
Lobok posted:I don't doubt that it's possible, but even with Roger Rabbit we didn't have Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse going head to head at the time with their own huge tentpole movies. And of course, both of them were not the stars of Roger Rabbit either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Lobok posted:I don't doubt that it's possible, but even with Roger Rabbit we didn't have Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse going head to head at the time with their own huge tentpole movies. And of course, both of them were not the stars of Roger Rabbit either. Does Mickey even have his own "big movie" anymore? I know there's Fantasia but I mean anything recent? For that matter, I think the only thing Bugs has is the new Looney Tunes show and even that has been in limbo since February thanks to Cartoon Network's random hiatuses. Though, I think there's a new reboot Looney Tunes movie coming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Does anyone with more business acumen than me have any insight into this ridiculous ticketing dispute Disney and AMC (and the other theater chains) are having over Iron Man 3? Someone somewhere in the process is dragging their feet and losing dozens of pre-sold ticket sales. How hard is it to physically sit these people down in a conference room and talk this thing out? It's not a ridiculous dispute. Disney wants an additional 15% of the ticket sales revenue on IM3, and chains rightfully assume if they agree it will give other studios leverage to renegotiate on their split as well. It's not like the theater business is booming, and studios are asking for an even bigger cut of the pie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:It's not a ridiculous dispute. Disney wants an additional 15% of the ticket sales revenue on IM3, and chains rightfully assume if they agree it will give other studios leverage to renegotiate on their split as well. Let me rephrase; the dispute itself is not ridiculous. The fact that its been ongoing for 2+ weeks is. Sit the executives down in a physical boardroom and have them talk it out. There's no way things would have taken longer than 2 or 3 days if that had been the case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
ThermoPhysical posted:
Pretty sure it's the same deal with Fox. They have to keep producing movies or the rights go back to Marvel. Also, they can't just poo poo out Corman $1,000,000 productions either. If what they're producing has a detrimental effect on the properties Marvel can take the properties back. For better or worse, this means we're going to see big budget Spider-Man, X-Men and Fantastic Four movies until audiences no longer give a poo poo and the rights are worthless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Would driving it into the ground until no one gives a crap also be considered detrimental? LOOOPHOOOLE!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Mr_Zombie posted:Pretty sure it's the same deal with Fox. They have to keep producing movies or the rights go back to Marvel. Also, they can't just poo poo out Corman $1,000,000 productions either. If what they're producing has a detrimental effect on the properties Marvel can take the properties back. For better or worse, this means we're going to see big budget Spider-Man, X-Men and Fantastic Four movies until audiences no longer give a poo poo and the rights are worthless. Which makes this whole situation suck. We'll never see a Spider-Man, X-Men, or FF movie in the same quality of the Marvel Studios movies because they have to keep pumping them out. The only person this benefits isn't even a person at all but the video game companies (namely Activision). They can keep making GBS threads out games as fast as possible. They own the rights for Spider-Man and X-Men games until 2017 (unless they've reupped them or something). Spider-Man games sell much better than X-Men and are guaranteed to sell no matter how the fans think so we'll no doubt see an ASM2 game from Beenox. As for X-Men...well...there was X-Men Destiny. X-Men Destiny is considered to be Silicon Knights' worst game since their creation as a developer studio. I don't think anyone wants anything X-Men unless it has "Legends" after the name and Activision isn't keen on doing that again for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
All four Spidermen and about half of the Xmen films are much better than Marvel Studio's movies so I'm ok with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Would driving it into the ground until no one gives a crap also be considered detrimental? LOOOPHOOOLE! It means that as well. If Fox released The Wolverine 3: The Fartening and had Wolverine farting into Magnetos face for four hours straight as Ian McKellen complains about the smell Marvel could take the rights back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Ang Lee's Hulk has been the best so far.Mr_Zombie posted:It means that as well. If Fox released The Wolverine 3: The Fartening and had Wolverine farting into Magnetos face for four hours straight as Ian McKellen complains about the smell Marvel could take the rights back. So isn't this really subjective if they could prove something in court and get the rights back?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Ang Lee's Hulk has been the best so far.= SUPERMAN RETURNS IS BRILLIANT! And here we go.... quote:So isn't this really subjective if they could prove something in court and get the rights back? It would take a lawyer much smarter than me to argue for the rights back. Holding up a printout of Rotten Tomatoes in court probably wouldn't cut it. I imagine it would have more to do with numbers. Like falling book sales, merchandise, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Mr_Zombie posted:It means that as well. If Fox released The Wolverine 3: The Fartening and had Wolverine farting into Magnetos face for four hours straight as Ian McKellen complains about the smell Marvel could take the rights back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:All four Spidermen and about half of the Xmen films are much better than Marvel Studio's movies so I'm ok with that. I don't know how anyone could think Spider-Man 3 was better than any on the Marvel Studios films unless you're enjoying it solely on clusterfuck spectacle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Dacap posted:I don't know how anyone could think Spider-Man 3 was better than any on the Marvel Studios films unless you're enjoying it solely on clusterfuck spectacle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Dacap posted:I don't know how anyone could think Spider-Man 3 was better than any on the Marvel Studios films unless you're enjoying it solely on clusterfuck spectacle. I don't know...Marvel Animation does Ultimate Spider-Man and I personally think that show is a travesty. I thought Marvel would be the company to get their own character right, but it turns out Sony was better than they were by far with Spectacular Spider-Man. Marvel Studios Spider-Man may look nice and all but after Ultimate Spider-Man, I'm kind of hesitant to see what they'd do to Spider-Man in a film. They've already done their best to wipe Josh Keaton out as THE Spider-Man voice and are getting Drake Bell to voice him whenever possible. X-Men, however, I think they could do right...but First Class wasn't that bad. Whatever my opinions, I still wouldn't mind seeing their take on Spidey and the X-Men...but considering those are both huge money makers for Sony and Fox respectively, we'll never see that happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Dacap posted:I don't know how anyone could think Spider-Man 3 was better than any on the Marvel Studios films unless you're enjoying it solely on clusterfuck spectacle. I view it the same way as Surlaw. Being bland and uninteresting is far worse to me than failures with interesting parts (even if the whole doesn't work, some good can redeem the experience), interesting vision, etc. It's also why I prefer Batman and Robin to Forever - they're both terrible in my opinion, but Batman and Robin is fascinatingly so and an interesting study on excess and studio "vision" whereas Forever is just a sad mess with a couple of ok moments in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
Batman and Robin is hilarious. Batman Forever is just obnoxious. I do not know why people in the 90s were OK with paying money to see Jim Carrey do things in movies, and I say this as somebody who was alive and paying for movies in the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Everyone seems to be arguing over whether a Spider-Man cameo is financially possible, but seems to be overlooking the fact that its just not that interesting. Seems better to have someone unexpected show up, like Constantine, or daredevil or something I think they missed a great visual opportunity in Avengers by not showing a girl run by in the background of Central Park, followed by an army of filthy NYC squirrels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Spider-Man / Daredevil / Whatever Street Level Hero showing up in Avengers isn't interesting to me, unless he's actually part of the plot. It'd be interesting to see the Avengers try and capture an elusive street level hero, rather than having a series of one-one solo fight scenes followed by an eventual, totally predictable teamup against a threat. It'd be cool if there was a Spider-Man story with the Avengers as the bad guys, hunting him, but that wouldn't be disney, at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
I do just kinda think it's long overdue to see a Marvel superhero that's not somehow connected to the military. Potential newcomers to Avengers 2 include Captain Marvel (air force), the Falcon (SHIELD agent most likely), and Ant-Man (also probably a SHIELD agent). Thor and Banner are arguably not, I know, but they come across as the odd men out while I wish it was the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Daredevil is back to Marvel, so it can happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind Nova getting involved somehow. The new one is actually quite good so far and fills a niche that's been left out of the Marvel movies so far but I'd also take the Rider version. One of my person favorites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:I wouldn't mind Nova getting involved somehow. The new one is actually quite good so far and fills a niche that's been left out of the Marvel movies so far but I'd also take the Rider version. One of my person favorites. There's been lots of rumors that the Nova Corps will be involved in Guaradians of the Galaxy in some capacity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:Batman and Robin is hilarious. Batman Forever is just obnoxious. I do not know why people in the 90s were OK with paying money to see Jim Carrey do things in movies, and I say this as somebody who was alive and paying for movies in the 90s. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Dacap posted:There's been lots of rumors that the Nova Corps will be involved in Guaradians of the Galaxy in some capacity. I can take or leave the Corps, I'm not that big on them. But I love the individual characters of both the old and new Nova.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
Nova Corps? Wait, is there gonna be doppling in this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 07:01
|
|
