|
People, a lesson from one of Disney's new properties: Mono = One
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
At least he’s honest with himself about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Due to the recent acquisition of Fox, the villain of Infinity War has been changed from Thanos to Hilary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
I think this will also give Disney the rights to re-distribute starwars 1-6. So maybe we will get the original versions of the movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
People are more forgiving of this huge monopolistic merger because we think it shouldn't be necessary for one huge company to eat another just so Marvel can use its own characters in movies again. Also most people fuckin loathe Fox so it's hard to get too upset even though yes this is a terrifying thing that is happening. Also the fact that it's not even going to be in the top ten most terrifying things that happened this year anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
badjohny posted:I think this will also give Disney the rights to re-distribute starwars 1-6. So maybe we will get the original versions of the movies. From what I gather on various FB posts about the deal, the original Lucasfilm purchase basically said they can never release those cuts of the film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Cocks Cable posted:At least with Disney owning these properties again, they won't have a reason to squeeze the X-Men and F4 out of other merchandising lines such as video games and collectible markets. You probably already know this, but AFAIK, Disney has owned 100% of the licensing rights for those properties for many years now, aside from possibly anything directly based on Fox films. The X-Men/FF licensing ban was enacted out of pure spite for Fox and nothing more. Ojjeorago posted:Due to the recent acquisition of Fox, the villain of Infinity War has been changed from Thanos to Hilary Clinton. I know this is just a joke, but Fox News isn’t part of the acquisition. I’d worry more about Murdoch buying CNN. Barry Convex fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:You probably already know this, but AFAIK, Disney has owned 100% of the licensing rights for those properties for many years now, aside from possibly anything directly based on Fox films. The X-Men/FF licensing ban was enacted out of pure spite for Fox and nothing more. In Fairness, gently caress Fox, and Murdoch...
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
badjohny posted:I think this will also give Disney the rights to re-distribute starwars 1-6. So maybe we will get the original versions of the movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
It wasn't JUST spite. It was done under the logic that licensing this stuff and making animated and other versions of the Fox-owned properties would basically end up being free advertising for their movies. Which isn't too far off the mark.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:I know this is just a joke, but Fox News isn’t part of the acquisition. I’d worry more about Murdoch buying CNN. It's not completely loony tunes to think that a Murdoch will be Iger's successor though, and y'know, gently caress that whole family.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:It's not completely loony tunes to think that a Murdoch will be Iger's successor though, and y'know, gently caress that whole family. Kathleen Kennedy has been the heir apparent for a while now
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Cant wait for the warp jump sequence in gotg3 where they jump past yavin 4 as an easter egg
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:It wasn't JUST spite. It was done under the logic that licensing this stuff and making animated and other versions of the Fox-owned properties would basically end up being free advertising for their movies. Well, you’re right, but I think that was always pretty lovely logic. Anyway, it’s almost poetic, isn’t it? All these years of Perlmutter et al. pushing from the top down to turn Inhumans into an X-Men-like property and failing at it, and just a month or so after the abysmal TV series ends, the whole thing becomes moot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:It's not completely loony tunes to think that a Murdoch will be Iger's successor though, and y'know, gently caress that whole family. Big Mean Jerk posted:Kathleen Kennedy has been the heir apparent for a while now James Murdoch has been discussed in the context of this deal, but my understanding based on a handful of articles from earlier in this year (when this acquisition was almost certainly in its initial stages but hadn't yet been disclosed to the public) is that "influential people" (whoever they may be) in Disney are very keen on promoting Sheryl Sandberg, who's currently on the Walt Disney Company board and is also the Chief Operating Officer at Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
X-Men have actually been allowed in games and merchandise for a couple of years again now, but the current crop of games were developed under the ban so only mobile stuff that can quickly add content have had them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:Well, you’re right, but I think that was always pretty lovely logic. It's not, really. The deal where Marvel sold off the rights to their properties was made to keep the company afloat, and are thus full of really exploitative terms that favored the studios. The profits for all tie-in products would go to Fox, which included toys, promotional stuff, everything. The only way for Marvel to make money off of these characters is to include them in standard Marvel-branded stuff. Meanwhile, comics make a fraction of the actual money they can get from movies and all that other stuff, so from a business perspective it would look like pouring money into a hole for the sake of the other team. Basically, Marvel accepted a really lovely deal to survive, and years later after being bought by Disney, the comics became big enough to actually start feeling like they needed to undermine this stuff, while Disney was pissed that they both owned and "didn't own" this stuff. No one involved really comes out of it looking very good. The tactics Marvel employed to try and freeze Fox out were founded in solid business logic, but they also undermined the brand and amounted to pissing in the wind until... well, here we are. Disney went over their heads, more or less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
So is Namor the only thing they don't have now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Retro Futurist posted:So is Namor the only thing they don't have now? Namor was part of the FF license, wasn't he?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
It's funny that Namor is like the first real Marvel hero, along with the original Human Torch, and has become the problem child that mom and dad don't like to talk about when he doesn't show up for the holidays.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Namor was part of the FF license, wasn't he? Separated and was part of a deal with Universal. My understanding is that Marvel already had those rights back though since nothing was ever done with the property.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Namor was part of the FF license, wasn't he? I thought he was with Universal somehow still? E: well there you go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
The film part of Namor's wikipedia page makes it seem like no one is really certain if Namor is with Universal or Marvel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Open Marriage Night posted:It's funny that Namor is like the first real Marvel hero, along with the original Human Torch, and has become the problem child that mom and dad don't like to talk about when he doesn't show up for the holidays. He’s so loving unlikable. At least in the Silver Age. Maybe he gets better I dunno. If Daredevil can do it anyone can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Well, somebody is happy about the acquisition https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/941346237801885696
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:He’s so loving unlikable. At least in the Silver Age. Maybe he gets better I dunno. If Daredevil can do it anyone can. Namors entire personality is being a huge loving unlikable rear end in a top hat I'm not sure what genius ever thought you could make a movie about him
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Yes yes yes give the X-Men to Gunn after GotG 3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:Well, somebody is happy about the acquisition Well, yeah, I’m sure Doop is stoked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Retro Futurist posted:So is Namor the only thing they don't have now? As far as I'm aware its both Namor and Hulk distribution rights, both of which are with Universal
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Retro Futurist posted:So is Namor the only thing they don't have now? Sony still has film rights to Spider-Man and associated characters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
But Sony has at least expressed an interest in sharing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
FoneBone posted:Sony still has film rights to Spider-Man and associated characters. Still looking forward to that Aunt May flick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:It's not, really. The deal where Marvel sold off the rights to their properties was made to keep the company afloat, and are thus full of really exploitative terms that favored the studios. The profits for all tie-in products would go to Fox, which included toys, promotional stuff, everything. The only way for Marvel to make money off of these characters is to include them in standard Marvel-branded stuff. Meanwhile, comics make a fraction of the actual money they can get from movies and all that other stuff, so from a business perspective it would look like pouring money into a hole for the sake of the other team. As ubiquitous as the "Marvel was forced into making bad deals out of financial desperation" narrative has become, it's not actually true. You can read more in Marvel Comics: The Untold Story, by Sean Howe, but the short version is that the X-Men and FF rights were sold years before Marvel filed for bankruptcy in 1996, and the Spider-Man rights were sold to Sony several years after, when Marvel had largely recovered. Far from being desperate, Marvel's management at the time was eager to sign these deals, which of course look lovely in the post-MCU world, because they viewed potential films based on their IP primarily as risk-free advertising for their IP in other media - comics, animation, and merchandising - rather than as a viable revenue stream in and of themselves. From that perspective, the perpetuity clauses in many of these deals were actually a good thing, as they gave the studios in question an incentive to keep making films every few years, whereas many of Marvel's previous film deals had led to nothing but their properties languishing in development hell until the deals expired. As for merchandising rights, I'm not sure what the exact terms were throughout the 90s or the 2000s, or even at the beginning of this decade, but I'm pretty sure that Marvel has fully controlled the X-Men and FF licensing and animation rights for a good few years now. If there's reporting to the contrary, I stand corrected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
FoneBone posted:Sony still has film rights to Spider-Man and associated characters. Oh right, forgot about this one. Its actually much, much more complicated than this. Sony has leased production rights of S-M for 7 movies, 3 solo projects produced solely by Sony and 4 team up projects produced solely by Marvel Studios. All movies are under the creative head of Marvel Studios. Right now, they're at 5 of the 7 in various states of completion- Homecoming and Homecoming 2 are 2 of the 3 Sony solos, and Civil War, IW, and Avengers 4 are the 3 announced team-ups. After the 7 movies are done Sony and Disney will revisit their agreement and more than likely re-up for another half-dozen movies. Sony funds and gains the sole BO of the solo S-M flicks, while Marvel does the same thing for team-ups that he is in. Interestingly, Disney has merchandising rights to both, dunno how they worked that out. Spider-Man characters who aren't Peter Parker are still under Sony, so for instance that announced Tom Hardy Venom movie will not be MCU and solely funded and promoted by Sony. I think that covers it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
I mean it's only a matter of time before Sony hands the reigns over, but even if they don't at their stuff is part of the MCU. Once their weird, completely unpromoted and somehow disconnected from Spider-man Venom movie flops they'll do yet another massive restructuring. V--- I'm guessing it's like Hulk where they can use him but can't do a solo movie. And without FF or X-men why would you bother using Namor? Opopanax fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
I thought Kevin Feige did an interview a year or so ago and he said that from what he understood, Namor could be used by Disney
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I thought Kevin Feige did an interview a year or so ago and he said that from what he understood, Namor could be used by Disney Its distribution rights. Disney can use Namor as much as they want, they can't make a Namor movie starring Namor all about Namor's life as king of Atlantis. Its the Hulk thing, basically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
One weird trick: They could make a Namor/Hulk team up movie. Surf N Turf
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:One weird trick: They could make a Namor/Hulk team up movie. Surf N Turf Splash 'n' Smash
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
Oh my god somebody call Shane Black.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:48
|
|
