|
Zeeman posted:Not just the X-men To be fair, Tony was right and did land the thing.... But it was immediately destroyed by a dinosaur shortly after.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:The retconned that away so Doreen didn't have to worry about any of the angsty mutant stuff that's been going on (like the Terrigen mists or whatever). USG is intended to be an angst-free comic. Wasn't that more to keep Fox from owning her rights?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
zoux posted:Wasn't that more to keep Fox from owning her rights? Is this the "When she was born, the doctor said she was biologically and legally distinct from mutants, for realsies, no take-backs" thing? I was pretty sure that was tongue-in-cheek making fun of the whole "Fox owns mutants" thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Correct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not sure that'll stand up in court, but I'd be interested in seeing that case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
DID YOU ORDER THE RETCON
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH*!!! * See issue #52 -Ed
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Yeah, I'm not sure that'll stand up in court, but I'd be interested in seeing that case. More realistically (without knowing anything about the specific contract between Marvel and Fox), the licence is for "X-Men and associated characters" with some sort of definition of "associated characters" defining it as characters created in X-Men comics or primarily associated with them, which is how you get to Sabertooth (originally an Iron Fist villain) being part of the Fox package, and Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch being contested. The end result being Squirrel Girl not really fitting into that package of licenses at all, regardless of whether she's a mutant or not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
I mean Franklin Richards is a mutant, but not associated with the X-men in any meaningful way. The fact that Fox owns the movie rights to him is unrelated to him being a mutant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:Like, literally not at all. Was she a member of the Great Lakes X-Men?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
prefect posted:Was she a member of the Great Lakes X-Men? Yeah, but the Great Lakes Whatevers have changed their team name about half a dozen times --- they were originally the Great Lakes Avengers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Chit chitta bub.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
I wonder if the New Warriors is before or after the death of Monkey Joe. All I can say is, there better be either Monkey Joe or Tippy Toe. And regardless of which, they better be subtitled when chattering with Doreen. E: I didn't realize this about why Monkey Joe died (from the Monkey Joe page on the Marvel Wiki) quote:Monkey Joe's death was part of a marketing promise that a member of the GLA would die in each issue of the miniseries, as a parody to comic book deaths.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Proteus Jones posted:I wonder if the New Warriors is before or after the death of Monkey Joe. The character description for Doreen mentions Tippy Toe by name so it's a safe bet she will be in the show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Wait, Squirrel Girl is getting a show?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wait, Squirrel Girl is getting a show? On Freeform (previously ABC Family). So no, not really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Are there any prominent mutants that are totally unaffiliated with the X-Men? I'm struggling to think of any. On-topic, some more USG greatness 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Namor, Franklin Richards, and Toro are the biggest ones I can think of, in that order.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Namor's been X-men adjacent (in all meanings of the word) quite a few times. There aren't many options since most of them died.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wait, Squirrel Girl is getting a show? New Warriors. She's gonna be played by the girl from the AT&T commercials.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Namor and the Richards kids come in through the Fantastic Four license that Fox currently holds. It's been such box office poison for them that Marvel's had no interest in reclaiming it or doing a shared custody deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
I mean the FF would fit in nicely with Infinite Crisis but holy hell I never want to see an FF movie ever again unless it's titled The Incredibles 2 EDIT: Incidentally why did Marvel never try to go after Pixar for The Incredibles Calaveron fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jul 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Not enough to build a case on. None of it was based on a science experiment gone wrong, it was two adults and two children, the powersets don't quite line up... An homage at best, possibly even protected parody.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
goatface posted:Not enough to build a case on. None of it was based on a science experiment gone wrong, it was two adults and two children, the powersets don't quite line up... An homage at best, possibly even protected parody. Plus if Marvel started suing over similar characters then it's just a billion years of lawsuits back and forth between them and DC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Plus if Marvel started suing over similar characters then it's just a billion years of lawsuits back and forth between them and DC. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Namor and the Richards kids come in through the Fantastic Four license that Fox currently holds. It's been such box office poison for them that Marvel's had no interest in reclaiming it or doing a shared custody deal. I am reasonably certain Namor's film rights were with a completely different deal with Universal that subsequently lapsed, or are tied up in a conundrum similar to the Hulk. I also am not privy to all the ins and outs of these deals, which are apparently as convoluted as international trade agreements.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
goatface posted:Not enough to build a case on. None of it was based on a science experiment gone wrong, it was two adults and two children, the powersets don't quite line up... An homage at best, possibly even protected parody. Sure but Violet's powers are pretty blatant
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Ain't nobody going to court over powersets. That poo poo is waaay too risky.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:I am reasonably certain Namor's film rights were with a completely different deal with Universal that subsequently lapsed, or are tied up in a conundrum similar to the Hulk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
smashpro1 posted:New Warriors. She's gonna be played by the girl from the AT&T commercials. Oooh, she's great in Other Space.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Savage Land isn't quite how i remember.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Zeeman posted:Are there any prominent mutants that are totally unaffiliated with the X-Men? I'm struggling to think of any. Marvel Boy / Justice / Vance Astro. New Warriors, Avengers, alternate time line Guardians of the Galaxy. Never an X-Man as far as I recall, unless you count banging Firestar as "X-Men adjacent".
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:I am reasonably certain Namor's film rights were with a completely different deal with Universal that subsequently lapsed, or are tied up in a conundrum similar to the Hulk. This is the most recent version of this chart I can find, but it lists Uatu as Fox which can't be correct, right?  e: oh there we go 
Sockser fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Zeeman posted:Not just the X-men 'Acceptable nudity'? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Sockser posted:This is the most recent version of this chart I can find, but it lists Uatu as Fox which can't be correct, right? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
But... Isn't he in Guardians 2? Or is that the other watchers and the F4 licensing only covers Uatu specifically? e: In fact, quote:If you’ve watched a movie set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, you’ve no doubt noticed comic book visionary Stan Lee popping up in little cameo roles. For years, it’s been rumored that, rather than being silly cameos, Lee is actually portraying the same person, specifically Uatu the Watcher, a character known for appearing when world-altering events are occurring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
I imagine they're probably fine to use the standard visuals of The Watchers as long as they don't directly refer to Uatu specifically. Somewhat similar as to how they managed to get Quicksilver/Scarlet Witch into the Avengers by setting up a new origin where they weren't mutants and arguing that they were therefore legally distinct properties to what had been sold to Fox under that contract. It's impossible to know for sure until they're in a movie though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Uatu was created solely to hype up and provide exposition for the arrival of Silver Surfer/Galactus, so he's certainly covered by the Fantastic Four licensing. While I'm not discounting the possibility that Uatu is licensed to Fox because he first appeared in FF, he did appear like three years before the Galactus story. He first shows up when the FF battle Red Ghost and the Super-Apes on the moon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Benito Cereno posted:While I'm not discounting the possibility that Uatu is licensed to Fox because he first appeared in FF, he did appear like three years before the Galactus story. He first shows up when the FF battle Red Ghost and the Super-Apes on the moon. They should make that into a movie, it's even newly topical again thanks to Putin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
Skwirl posted:They should make that into a movie, it's even newly topical again thanks to Putin. Trump and his two sons?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:31
|
|
