|
zoux posted:The last Venom related thing I read was when Venom when the former Scorpion was him in Dark Avengers. I really loved that portrayal in Ellis' Thunderbolts. Making Venom seem frightening without just turning him into Carnage is super hard, but I feel like Ellis pulled it off in that run. Did anyone ever do something similar with Eddie Brock?
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
zoux posted:The last Venom related thing I read was when the former Scorpion was him in Dark Avengers. Flash Thompson gets the symbiote and uses it to become a secret agent, now he's going to space because all low selling titles need to tie into film properties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Waterhaul posted:Flash Thompson gets the symbiote and uses it to become a secret agent, now he's going to space because all low selling titles need to tie into film properties. Its that or limbo. Marvel also can not use agent venom, since both parts of him are owned by Sony.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
So say Tony Stark was Venom for the next 10 years. What would that do to the licensing rights? Would Tony Stark now be considered to be part of the Spider-man line? I guess there will be no definite answer to this, as no one has their hands on the actual licensing agreement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
Sturm posted:So say Tony Stark was Venom for the next 10 years. What would that do to the licensing rights? Would Tony Stark now be considered to be part of the Spider-man line? That's where you fall into the whole Wanda/Pietro mess where both studios just have to use the handful of characters that would cause brand/rights confusion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Sturm posted:So say Tony Stark was Venom for the next 10 years. What would that do to the licensing rights? Would Tony Stark now be considered to be part of the Spider-man line? I don't think you can move existing rights like that, as Venom and Stark are already clearly defined. Quicksilver and Wanda were muddled before the rights were sold, and the contact on clear on them, I guess
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Marvel could still use Tony and Sony could still use Venom, but not vice versa. Venom is a character and an attachment. Tony may become Venom, but Venom is still separate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
We already have an issue similar to that. Fox has the Super-Skrull, but Marvel has Skrulls as a species.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
I'd really like to sit in on one of these arbitrations where actual professional lawyers have to argue before a judge about hyper techincal grognards comic book lore poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
zoux posted:I'd really like to sit in on one of these arbitrations where actual professional lawyers have to argue before a judge about hyper techincal grognards comic book lore poo poo. All copyright law is like that. I mean really, all lawyers are grognards deep down. "The rules state that this is against the law. Except that this one time, when the defendant was wearing a bowler hat when he did it as per precedent set in issue 370, your honor." "Objection! That was later retconed, in 876, into never happening and all previous incarnations of that exception were actually alternate realities."
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:We already have an issue similar to that. Fox has the Super-Skrull, but Marvel has Skrulls as a species. That's silly. Skrulls first appeared in the Fantastic Four's second ever issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
zoux posted:I'd really like to sit in on one of these arbitrations where actual professional lawyers have to argue before a judge about hyper techincal grognards comic book lore poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:That's silly. Skrulls first appeared in the Fantastic Four's second ever issue. But the skrull a have become part of avengers lore, so therefore as long as they are not named or cowed they can be in marvel films.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:But the skrull a have become part of avengers lore, so therefore as long as they are not named or cowed they can be in marvel films. Also anything extraterrestrial has weird interactions with Guardians of the Galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:The phrase 'kick-rear end warrior angels' has appeared in a court decision, along with continuity nitpicking over how often Malebolgia sends Spawns to Earth. Reading through the transcripts of that case are absolutely amazing.  It's a shame that Marvel is in the cluster it is now. If they had been smart (hindsight and all that) they would have made their various movie contracts with time limits on how long the various companies could hold onto their characters. Also, if I were Disney, I'd refuse to renew any contracts regardless of the dump trucks of money being offered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:Reading through the transcripts of that case are absolutely amazing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:Also, if I were Disney, I'd refuse to renew any contracts regardless of the dump trucks of money being offered. That's not how it works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:They had no say in it. They were looking for anyways to make money as they were filling bankruptcy. Yeah, there's a half way decent chance there wouldn't b a Marvel Comics if they hadn't sold the rights then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is all the proof you need to show I am not a lawyer!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Yeah, there's a half way decent chance there wouldn't b a Marvel Comics if they hadn't sold the rights then. Marvel was days from being sliced up and sold in lots when they made the first film deal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is all the proof you need to show I am not a lawyer! You don't option rights in a way that can allow the owner to pull them back - Sony invested a lot of money into Spider-man to hopefully make a franchise. After Spider-Man 1 broke all sorts of box office records, they can't leave themselves open to Marvel deciding that they would now, without taking any risk, be the ones to release Spider-man 2. So, basically, you sign a contract where YOU get to decide if you still want the rights, unless you stop using the property, in which case Marvel gets it back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
And Sony wants that Avengers money which is why they're going to attempt to franchise the gently caress out of their Spider-man option.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Marvel was days from being sliced up and sold in lots when they made the first film deal. How much more profitable is Marvel now than it was at its lowest point? And also, if you know, at its previous highest point?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
zoux posted:How much more profitable is Marvel now than it was at its lowest point? And also, if you know, at its previous highest point? Their highest point is probably right about now. They went from losing money to making millions. Disney bought them for 4 Billion. E: and it looks like Disney got a great price.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Cool you just reminded me that Facebook spent 3x more for a chat app than Disney did for loving Marvel Comics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:And Sony wants that Avengers money which is why they're going to attempt to franchise the gently caress out of their Spider-man option. Which is unfortunate, because I think it would be best for all of them if a central company was controlling the pace of releasing. I'm sure that part of the reason they're only doing 2-ish MCU movies a year is they don't want to overcrowd superhero movies, when they could easily do 4-5 themselves with little to no problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
That's less about undervaluing Marvel than it is Tech Company acquisitions being ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:Their highest point is probably right about now. They went from losing money to making millions. Disney bought them for 4 Billion. About the same amount it cost to buy Lucasfilm, I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Which is unfortunate, because I think it would be best for all of them if a central company was controlling the pace of releasing. I'm sure that part of the reason they're only doing 2-ish MCU movies a year is they don't want to overcrowd superhero movies, when they could easily do 4-5 themselves with little to no problem. Don't think of Spider-Man being part of the MCU, since there's never going to be any crossover aside from a brief wink or a nod (Stark Tower appearing in the New York skyline, for example).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:I really loved that portrayal in Ellis' Thunderbolts. Making Venom seem frightening without just turning him into Carnage is super hard, but I feel like Ellis pulled it off in that run. Did anyone ever do something similar with Eddie Brock? I'd say Len Kaminski's Venom: the Hunger is the closest you'll find. The symbiote feeds on a certain chemical in the host's brain and it's tapped Eddie dry, so it starts to affect the way he sees the world so that everyone's demonic while all the food he eats tastes horrible. After he picks a fight with a biker because he's "probably a criminal", the symbiote forces Eddie to eat the guy's brain. Eddie freaks out halfway through and the symbiote runs off to continue on its own. Because of their connection, Eddie (locked in an asylum) can constantly see it hunting down people and killing them. Then Eddie gets loose and decides to hunt the symbiote down via prep-time. Problem is, they can each see things through each other's eyes, so there's no element of surprise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Don't think of Spider-Man being part of the MCU, since there's never going to be any crossover aside from a brief wink or a nod (Stark Tower appearing in the New York skyline, for example). I...know? Knowing that is basically the entire point of my post?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I...know? Knowing that is basically the entire point of my post? I misread your post, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:They had no say in it. They were looking for anyways to make money as they were filling bankruptcy. Ron Perelman (through his holding company MacAndrews and Forbes) bought Marvel in 1989. They started making a bunch of moves aimed at pumping up the company for a big IPO in 1994. That involved buying up a bunch of companies (Fleer, Panini, Toy Biz, Skybox, Malibu, Heroes World) and juggling the costs/losses/etc. to show they they were this HUGE DOMINANT FORCE IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. This also involved a lot of lovely frontloaded movie options that gave them a big bump in revenue immediately and amounted to very little if/when the movies are made. All of this was very short sighted, but they did not care because their plan was to inflate the stock price crazily and then sell it all off and if it exploded five or ten years down the line, who cares? They got out. Of course, what happened was that the Heroes World distribution thing flopped, the comics industry bubble burst, the trading card market REALLY burst (especially with MLB going on strike) and even Panini had a lovely couple of years because their main license was Disney, who went from having a renaissance of really successful films pre-buyout (Little Mermaid/Beauty & the Beast/Aladdin/Lion King) to releasing A Goofy Movie, Pocohontas and Hunchback immediately post-buyout. So all of this cascaded to make the house of cards put together by Perelman collapse sooner rather than later, which is why Marvel filed for bankruptcy in December 1996. The movie deals were already long out of the barn by that point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Jim Shooter almost bought Marvel, but Perelman's bid ended up being slightly higher. I wonder what things would look like now if it had gone the other way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Just as an FYI, all Marvel's film contracts have a clause in them that if there isn't a movie in development for at least X years from either a) the last released movie or b) the signing of the contract, the rights roll back to Marvel. This is one of the reasons you had a revitalization of non-Disney comic book movies recently and partially why Spider-man was rebooted (and Fantastic Four is being rebooted). Almost the day after Marvel was purchased by Disney, the studios put these movies in development to keep the licenses. Disney did offer to let Fox (?) keep the Daredevil license if they were willing to give up the rights to Galactus, Surfer and I think the Skrulls but obviously that didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:Just as an FYI, all Marvel's film contracts have a clause in them that if there isn't a movie in development for at least X years from either a) the last released movie or b) the signing of the contract, the rights roll back to Marvel. This is one of the reasons you had a revitalization of non-Disney comic book movies recently and partially why Spider-man was rebooted (and Fantastic Four is being rebooted). Almost the day after Marvel was purchased by Disney, the studios put these movies in development to keep the licenses. It's also the reason we got the first and best Fantastic Four movie back in the 90's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Gavok posted:It's also the reason we got the first and best Fantastic Four movie back in the 90's. Is it even possible to see that movie? I know the cast made media/con appearances but it was never actually released. Also, is there a list of BSS Twitters somewhere? I'm only following a handful. Do doogs or burtle have one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Is it even possible to see that movie? I know the cast made media/con appearances but it was never actually released. The movie's up on YouTube twice, so you can check it out there. Official release? Not so much, though they are releasing a documentary on it soon. d00gZ is @DavidUzumeri Don't know about burtle, but everyone should be following @Gavin4L. That guy is the cat's pajamas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Gavok posted:I'd say Len Kaminski's Venom: the Hunger is the closest you'll find. The symbiote feeds on a certain chemical in the host's brain and it's tapped Eddie dry, so it starts to affect the way he sees the world so that everyone's demonic while all the food he eats tastes horrible. After he picks a fight with a biker because he's "probably a criminal", the symbiote forces Eddie to eat the guy's brain. Eddie freaks out halfway through and the symbiote runs off to continue on its own. Because of their connection, Eddie (locked in an asylum) can constantly see it hunting down people and killing them. Hey, Sony! Read this plot synopsis!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
Gavok posted:Don't know about burtle, but everyone should be following @Gavin4L. That guy is the cat's pajamas.  I'm @jmcaree I presume most people don't mind their handles being shared but I'll let others chime in with their own since quite a few are Real Name Crew. irlZaphod fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 09:33
|
|
