|
|
Post by mrfatso on Dec 6, 2017 20:21:01 GMT
I think they were talking about a Black Cat film, which would be less problematical for all concerned. Black Cat. It was a "blink and you'll miss it" moment, but AM2 name-dropped Felicia Hardy as being an OsCorp intern, and so she was literally in the background for a few key scenes. Given that the film ended with Gwen's death (yes, I spent the entire second half wondering when that was going to happen*), AM3 would likely have had Black Cat show up for the love angle. *For those who don't know - The comics first killed Gwen back in the 1970s. It was yet another showdown between Spider-Man / Goblin show-down in which the Goblin in question discovered Spider-Man's identity and used Gwen as bait. Gwen was thrown from a bridge, and Spider-Man only fired a single strand of webbing to stop her from falling into the water. This led to her decelerating so suddenly that the whiplash broke her neck. Since then? Unless there's something I've missed, if Gwen has shown up and either she's not the focal character or the series isn't a "kid" show, she's dead like Uncle Ben. As Spiderman Homecoming is yet another reboot of the series Gwens death at the end of AM2 is not really relavent it's a new continuity. Besides which SpiderGwen is a character from the Spiderverse storyline, she is one of the alternate "Spiders" that exist in that story, there's a Noir Spiderman, a Cowboy Spiderman and Spiderpig amongst many others. In her earth when the school trip went to the lab she was bitten by the spider and gained powers not Peter Parker. Of all the alternate Spiders she proved most popular and Marvel decided to create a comic book series for that character of her own. I do think that Black Cat is a likely candidate though. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 7, 2017 8:42:26 GMT
Thor, question on "Owning" him.
As Cyber's Avatar, Cyber has as much right to owning Thor as say the Canadians who did Stargate, or anyone else, including Me, it turns out, who apart from being part Canadian, am part Viking as well.
Thats a strange thing I have yet to untangle, but, its kind of this way, the Vikings found Canada long before Christopher Columbus tripped over it, Magellan drew a map of it, or anyone else who you can think of, and even though its name of Newfoundland is obvious that it was land that was found newly, its kind of been there for many years, and, it starting to look like the Canadians in my part of the family were originally Viking... and therefore, part of me being Agnostic, there are far to many Gods in my own family for me to pick "Just One" as the ultimate deity?.
As for Marvel and DC trying to "own" him, there are a thousand hairy Vikings ready to pick a battle if anyone tries to Trademark that name...
Along with any other Asgardian, or any of the tribe of Aesir, or Æsir, they belong to the scandeweigian countries, can anyone just coppywrite any of their names?.
And therefore, I would also like to see anyone try to copywrite Loki's head, because that would just be fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Dec 7, 2017 9:13:04 GMT
Yes it's difficult to own Thor or Loki themselves but the setting of Thor and Loki in the Marvel universe with all the trappings and associated characters such as Jane Porter, the Warriors Three etc. Is what they do own.
There are a number of film companies (or may be its just one) that make copycat movies Battlefield Los Angeles instead of Battle Los Angeles, Transmuters etc presumably in an attempt to confuse well meaning parents into buying the wrong DVD, with pretty poor acting and effects. One of them made their own Thor film and yes as you say they don't have to make any changes to the classical Norse mythology.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 7, 2017 9:54:12 GMT
Yes it's difficult to own Thor or Loki themselves but the setting of Thor and Loki in the Marvel universe with all the trappings and associated characters such as Jane Porter, the Warriors Three etc. Is what they do own. There are a number of film companies (or may be its just one) that make copycat movies Battlefield Los Angeles instead of Battle Los Angeles, Transmuters etc presumably in an attempt to confuse well meaning parents into buying the wrong DVD, with pretty poor acting and effects. One of them made their own Thor film and yes as you say they don't have to make any changes to the classical Norse mythology. They dont have to, but I wish they would get it right?. Classical mistake being the horned helmets. That just did NOT happen. Just because you found the remains of a helmet and some horns in a grave does not mean the two were connected. The Helmet is a helmet, the horns were drinking vessel's, thats all. And the Vikings were not so stupid they would create a drinking hat....  There are many classical mistakes in Norse mythology, that once one person has made them, the rest tag along like sheep, and it gets into a stage of classical MODERN mythology, and that annoys me. Mainly because it dont take muck to type a few words into a search engine and get results from cyberspace.... This isnt just Norse either. The thinking that the Egyptians believed their Kings were Gods. Bunkum. OK, so maybe the meaning of god in "a god" has changed down the line. But many of the Egyptian Kings were "Son of [god]". They were believed to be therefore the voice of the God(s) on earth, because they had been handed down the instructions down the line. It was believed that the king was of divine right, and was the son or daughter of the line of divinity that stretched back to the original god, and that when they died, they would ascend to be a god, but the belief that they were anything BUT human whilst on earth was pure bunkum, otherwise, no one would have embalmed the body, because Gods should be able to take care of themselves?. In truth, our own Queen, and throughout history, all our Kings and Queens in line, are/is "Defender of the faith(s)", and so is awarded divine rights to be head of all churches in this country. Thats about how it was back then, except our own Kings and Queen will not ascend to be a god, but they will get to sit at the top table in whatever is the equivalent to Asgard in the Christian faith. That is if they do a good job... That Charley boy who lost his head maybe sat at a lower table and may be only awarded the title of Milk Monitor because he was such a "#Fail" in real life?. History is changed by the winners.... Except some studio's play fast and loose with the written word when representing all that in film, and if they do make research, they tend to favour the research that "Fits the script" rather than what is truly believed to be the actual truth minus the miss and myth. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 7, 2017 16:03:59 GMT
As I've noted before; What works in one medium doesn't automatically work in another. Which is why the costumes worn by superheroes on the big screen are not exactly the same as those the characters wear in the comics; It would have been hard to take Hugh Jackman seriously as Wolverine had he been running around in a costume made of Yellow Spandex.
There is also the question of storytelling. In both film and TV you are aiming for a specific tone and style, although TV has slightly more leeway due to having far more time to fill. Some stories, or aspects of them, however would not fit with that tone. If you wanted to do a dark, gritty and brutal Thor story you may well decide it would be interesting to have Loki steal Thor's hammer - which he actually does in the Viking Sagas. However you probably would decide to change the part where Thor dresses up as a woman to recover the hammer as that wouldn't fit with a serious tone; TV as I noted has more leeway and might be able to get away with a slapstick episode depending on what the structure of the series was.
Some stories would also not fly with modern audiences. If you take a close look at the antics of a lot of Mythological such as Hercules, you quickly realize that they had a nasty habit of slaughtering everyone in the local area if anyone so much as gave them a dirty look. With modern audiences this would make the 'hero' look more like a phycopath. (Which is why every incarnation of Hercules on film either makes him a gentle giant or places him in a situation where A; He is not the instigator and B; Has no choice but to fight)
But back to Marvel.
I don't think we will see Spiderwoman or Spidergirl on the big screen, at least not yet. Spider Woman may well be a character we see as a member of the Avengers at some point, and it is even possible she could be introduced in a Spiderman film. But at the moment Marvel have more than enough characters to deal with, even after Avengers 4 which is likely to see at least some of the original Avengers killed or retired. It is even MORE unlikely if the Disney/Fox deal goes ahead, as Marvel will get X-Men, Deadpool and the Fantastic Four to play with. Spider Woman has, at best, been a rather minor supporting character who audiences simply don't know and would have no real place in the MCU.
Given the options Marvel is likely to continue with Deadpool (educated guess; They will create a 'Marvel Knights' division to produce R rated films set in the MCU, based initially on Deadpool, but then probably spinning out to include Blade and other characters/groups that might not work as well in a PG-13 film). They would certainly add the X-Men to main MCU continuity (possible partial reboot using the infinity glove and stones to change aspects of MCU history), don't be all THAT surprised if they manage to convince Hugh Jackman to make an appearance as Wolverine in Avengers 4 even if that is as 'old man Logan' alongside X-23. They would then be looking at the Fantastic Four; Probably with the idea of Avengers 5 or 6 being the mother of all battles that involve all three groups fighting together, most likely against Galactus.
Spiderman wise; I would expect Black Cat to be the character they are thinking of. She is a better character due to being tied so closely to Spider Man and being in a slightly more Grey area. I would not, however, expect her to appear in her own film - she's just not that well known. I would expect them to introduce her in a Spider Man film, as a distracting love interest (a role she played in the comics), initially a criminal Peter has to deal with before becoming an ally. If the character is well received, and the Sony/Marvel deal is still in place, she might even make the jump to the Avengers roster - taking up the position currently held by Black Widow when that character is retired. (Both are normal women with shady backgrounds, assassin and thief respectively, trying to do good)
Sinister Six is probably a given, although my guess is that might be Spider Man 3 rather than their own film. Although Sony and Marvel might be looking at DC's Suicide Squad as evidence there is a market for a Villain lead film. My suspicion is that Marvel would caution restraint, and strongly suggest that rather than running ahead with such a film right now Sony would be better off building up their Spider Man world and introducing more of the Sinister Six before putting them center stage. They could do this fairly easily by suggesting a story along the lines of the Ultimate Sinister Six, where Spider Man ends up having to call in the Ultimate's (Literally the Avengers by another name) to help deal with the group.
This would basically give Sony their version of 'Civil War' where the Avengers support their character rather than the other way around.
The Venom film is already in production, which is possibly the only Marvel/Sony film in production to give me pause for thought. Personally I think the character is overrated. But regardless this still seems like a risk; Those who love the character are bound to be put off by changes, especially if those changes remove any connection between Spidey and Venom. Those that don't know the character are probably not going to see the appeal, especially if there is no connection. If its PG-13 it may struggle to show off how brutal the character can be. As an R-Rated film its going to struggle as it will lack the humor that made Deadpool work. It is also likely to be expensive, as Venom himself is going to have to be CGI.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 7, 2017 18:05:18 GMT
Venom's been a mainstay in the Spider-Man series for some time, and more recent ventures (such as the various cartoon series) have even dabbled with "reforming" characters like Venom and Rhino. It's possible that the studio is banking on these works providing sufficient name recognition, but IMHO it's a long shot at best.
As far as the intellectual property rights issue goes, take a look at the actual legal branding of the material. Instead of simply saying "Thor", for example, I do recall many an issue going out with the title "Marvel's Thor", the Marvel designator being in much smaller print. "Marvel's Thor" legally distinguishes the character from any other interpretation of the mythos, so as long as the print is legible (basically) they're covered.
With Black Cat, there are some issues to be considered. One issue is the age she'll be set at. While the original comics - and quite a bit of subsequent media deriving from the classic comics - had her as being about Peter's age, the "Ultimate" universe kept her as an adult despite de-aging Peter back to a high school student. The "Amazing Spider-Man" series wouldn't have had much of an issue with this, as both Peter and Felicia were established as being adults; Peter's working his way through college, while Felicia's a paid intern. The Marvel relaunch of the character, however, has Peter back to being a teenager. Given the way things are going these days, trying to play up a romantic relationship between the pair while Peter is still a minor is going to haunt the franchise, even if they do the "Ultimate" universe "She literally throws up in front of him when she realizes she was putting the moves on a teen" bit.
Another, though decidedly more curious, issue with Black Cat is going to be her bust size. Traditionally, the character has been depicted as having a large bust; supposedly, one writer actually went so far as to have her say that she's learned how to use her bust as "ballast" for when she does her gymnastics. If the movie does pad the costumes enough to give the character a large chest, the same crowd who got their knickers in a twist over Wonder Woman shaving her body hair will be out in full force. If it doesn't, then we can expect complaints about how the production crew supposedly kow-towed to political correctness.
And no, that last part's not hyperbole. The comics are taking a lot of heat because the latest crop of artists have shifted the art style so drastically that a number of characters have effectively been given entirely new character models. As part of it, a number of female characters that had traditionally been depicted as being "cute" or "sexy" have been heavily reworked. For example, Carol Danvers (re: female Captain Marvel) has been given such a straight-up masculine appearance that one controversial critic now refers to her as "Carl Manvers" and refuses to accept the redone Captain Marvel as being the same character.* Gamorra, meanwhile, is now sometimes depicted as being just shy of She-Hulk depending upon who has art duty that issue. It may seem a petty thing to complain about, but it *is* part of the larger shift towards increasingly bad artwork, so it does come up.
Granted, Marvel's stuff is still better than what IDW's been giving us...
*I saw the action figure Hasbro made of the new character model. The sculpt used for the head is, indeed, so generic and questionably-done that it could easily be recycled for a figure of either gender.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 7, 2017 18:43:09 GMT
I think I noted elsewhere that while comic book characters come with a potential built in audience, that audience is simply not large enough to support a film aimed entirely at them.
The biggest selling comic book in history was an issue of the X-Men from the mid 1990's with roughly 9.5 million copies sold world-wide. Many of these sales were, as it turns out, to investers rather than actual comic book readers. But even if they were all fans of the X-Men, and all of them had gone out to see a film at $10 a head (roughly the average ticket price worldwide) That would only bring in some $91 million at the box office, only half of which goes to the studio. Even without adding marketing costs, it is clear that this kind of money wouldn't come close to paying for a comic book film - heck it wouldn't have come close to paying for Deadpool which is a 'cheap' comic book film costing around $58 million.
So effectively relying on the existing comic book audience is not remotely feasable.
As far as Black Cat goes. I would expect her to be introduced as a class mate of Peters or maybe a year ahead of him. This would be more in keeping with the younger cast of the Spiderman films, and allow more options; Such as making her a friend of MJ, which would make Peter trying to get her to change her ways more complex that 'she's hot'. It would also mean that she would have a better reason for wanting to change beyond 'He's cute'.
Making her a friend of MJ might also simplyfy the story. While she might well have a crush on him, and flirt a great deal, as soon as she finds out who's under the mask any friendship with MJ (especially if she knows MJ is interested in Peter) allows her to decide to settle on being friends. Doing this would be a simple way to show that no matter what she had done earlier she is at heart a good person who can be redeemed, and therefore is willing to help Peter for no other reason than it is the right thing to do. (Rather than helping because she is love struck). That automatically makes her a more interesting and complex character, especially if she isn't entirely able to overcome aspects of her wilder side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 7, 2017 19:01:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 16, 2017 22:16:18 GMT
Well as predicted Disney have bought Fox, or at least their TV and film divisions. Since this (renamed) thread is for the films lets take a look at what this means for the MCU moving foreward and some misconceptions/misunderstandings.
Disney/Marvel now has full rights back for the X-Men and related characters, this includes Deadpool.
Technically they DON'T actually have the rights for the Fantastic Four back, as strictly speaking these were not actually held by Fox. The rights to the FF were/are held by another company who came to an arrangement with Fox. In essense 'subletting' the rights to the larger company.
Practically speaking Disney will get the rights back, as this other company no longer produces films. Worst case is that the agreement with Fox will move directly to Disney, best case the other company will sell the rights back to Disney.
Although everyone (including Disney) is talking about the buyout as though they can use the characters right now. The truth is that it will still have to be accepted by Government agencies (I forget which one) which will probably take around a year. This should have no effect on films, which I suspect will pass muster without issue. If there are any concerns they will probably be in regards Hulu and those Fox networks included in the deal. In which case Disney will probably sell off some of the networks and/or Hulu shares.
They have confirmed that both the X-Men and the Fantastic Four will become part of the MCU, as well as Deadpool going ahead. (Since Deadpool 2 has already been filmed this is hardly a surprise).
Now my predictions/thoughts;
Deadpool; Unless Deadpool 2 is a huge flop expect it to continue unchanged. They have said they have no problem with R rated films as long as the audience knows what to expect. (Translation; As long as an R rated film isn't marketed or crosses over with the MCU in such a way it could be mistaken as being suitable for children). I would not be surprised if Disney creates a sub-division of the MCU specifically for R-Rated films including Deadpool, Cable and X-Force. This might also be a good way for Disney to run potentual future talent though their paces on a film without risking too much, if these films have lower budgets than the main MCU films.)
Disney isn't going to want to change Deadpool at this point anyway, given that the first film made more than Justice League did without the marketing and on something like 1/4tr the budget.
X-Men; Will be rebooted. As to how they would do this is unknown, probably even to them right now. One option, and the most popular at the moment, is that the infinity war (Avengers 4) will see the universe being changed by the Infinity stones.
Personally I think the better, more interesting and more helpful way to introduce the X-Men would be to have Mutants having existed for some time in the MCU, but in such small numbers they were able to hide their existance and were helped by amongst others Nick Fury.
This is simple, won't confuse the majority of the audience, would allow them to have both an 'original' group film set in the past and a more modern group in the current time, makes Nick Fury a MUCH more interesting and complex character than he is already - and it allows you to have a characeter dropping in to 'prove' this is part of the MCU without overshadowing the X-Men in anyway and last it would solve a rather major plot hole that lies at the very base of the MCU; Why would Nick Fury in Iron Man be looking at creating a team of superpowered individuals? The established events of the MCU at this point wouldn't give him any reason to thing such a group would be needed, or for that matter could ever be created? If, however, Fury already knew about Mutants and especially Magneto this desire to create his own 'super-team' makes more sense. If he's been helping hide the X-Men, realising that they are not a threat but treating them like that would almost certainly make them one. It would also explain why the world security council didn't understand the need for the Avengers, as Fury didn't tell them about mutants. This could also be used to introduce mutants to the larger world by having information on them having been included in the SHIELD files Black Widow released to the world in Winter Soldier but only recently decrypted.
Personally I feel that the X-Men would work best if they have adventures in their own 'world' and rarely cross over with the main MCU. This is what typically happens in the comics - in fact the 'New X-Men' introduced in 1975 didn't meet either the Avengers or Fantastic Four for ten years, and then the only person who didn't treat them with distrust was Spider-Man.
Fantastic Four; Can be introduced easily enough, and unlike the X-Men there are no reasons for them not becoming a major part of the MCU and crossing over. I'm actually guessing that the FF might appear before the X-Men in the MCU, both due to the ease in which they can be introduced and because they don't have any recent films anyone is going to compare them to.
Personally I'd make the FF far younger than their comic book counterparts, with Johny Storm being the yougest and around the same age as Peter Parker. This would allow the mandatory cross over to 'prove' they are in the MCU, but also (and just as importantly) would allow the FF to appear in a Spider-Man film in a logical way. Specifically it would allow Sony/Marvel to do a Sinister Six film without having to bring in half the Avengers, and the FF helping makes sense if Johny Storm is already friends with Peter.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Dec 16, 2017 22:37:25 GMT
In the MCU the role of mutants has basically been played by Inhumans that's why they had the second wave of terra-genesis in the Agents of Shield storyline, and Scarlet Witch who in the comic books is Magnetos daughter is an inhuman created by Hydra in Age of Ultron.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 16, 2017 22:41:25 GMT
I know there have been spidey/FF crossovers - it was Reed who got him free from the symbiote in the comics, as I recall. and didn't the symbiote originally come from infinity war? or was it something else that had peter off planet? I looked it up, it was secret wars. spiderman.wikia.com/wiki/Symbiote_Costume |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 17, 2017 2:16:01 GMT
In the MCU the role of mutants has basically been played by Inhumans that's why they had the second wave of terra-genesis in the Agents of Shield storyline, and Scarlet Witch who in the comic books is Magnetos daughter is an inhuman created by Hydra in Age of Ultron. Scarlet Witch would be another reason for having Mutants already existing in the MCU, it could be used to explain why Hydra was conducting the experiments in the first place if they knew something about mutants. It might also work as a great way to explain why Magneto turns up now as a bad guy, but do so in a way that makes him more sympathetic. If he discovers he had a son who had died, and/or if his daughter also dies in Infinity War this could push him over the edge. Especially if he blames humans for their death. (Not unreasonable considering than none of those taking part in the Avengers have been mutants.) Given the less than spectacular reaction to the inhumans it is likely that Marvel will quietly drop references to them. Best guess is that they would re-con several characters, such as Scarlet Witch, so that whatever gave them their powers actually activated their latent mutant genes rather than made the Inhumans. Also note that while the TV shows technically take place in and are part of the MCU. To all intents they are separate at least as far as the TV series having no effect on the films. (In part because the head of the MCU films replaced the guy who runs the TV series and the two of the really don't get on). In fact I don't think Inhuman's have been mentioned in any of the films, which are far better known. So switching to 'Mutants' is not really going to be an issue. As far as the FF goes they have been friends with Spider-Man for a long time, and certainly far longer than Spidey was friends with the Avengers. Indeed Spidey attempted to join the FF long before he ever met the Avengers. All the main versions of the FF and Spider-Man have them being very good friends, and quite often they find out his identity before anyone else in that universe. Peter Parker and Johny Storm are usually portrayed as being much the same age, and being good friends. And when Spidey needs help it is usually the FF he goes to first, even when he is a member of the Avengers. One of the problems Marvel is going to have with the MCU is that there are no other characters of Peters age he can relate to or really be friends with. Having a younger FF, I'm guessing based on the Ultimate versions, would help solve this problem and allow more logical crossovers. As I said, it makes Sinister Six a more viable prospect as Spidey can get help to even the numbers without having to bring in the Avengers. But in addition it also allows them to drop Spidey into an FF film in an organic way to help both confirm its in the MCU and help sell an FF film to anyone who had the misfortune to see the last one. For example; If Johny is the same age as Peter then he should be in high school, so he might end up in Peters school where they meet and become friends. The FF themselves have their powers, but have not yet become a group at this point due to arguing and bickering. Later Peter, as Spider Man, runs across Johny when the latter ends up having to use his powers. Peter can then reveal his own identity and talk to Johny as an equal, giving him practical advice ("With great power comes great responsibility" 'You should use that more often'). This prompts Johny to go back to the FF, understanding that no matter how much they bicker they are family, which in turns helps turn them into the super-team we all know. Later; In Spider Man the Sinister Six is formed, and the first battle between Spidey and the Six does NOT go well. Badly hurt Spidey manages to escape, and after alerting his Aunt to hide, goes to the closest place he can think of to get help; The Baxter Building. Once there he gets aid, explains the situation and Johny immediately offers the FF's help. Pointing out that Peter is a friend. This leads to the final battle against the Sinister Six and the Fantastic Five ("We are not calling it that Webhead"), which allows Spidey to show his abilities by having to deal with two opponents at once. **** I'd have Johny as being the same age as Peter Parker, Sue Storm and Reed Richards would be older, maybe 19-21 and Ben Grim a few years older still. Reed is still a genius, but Sue is his equal although focused in different areas of science. Here the attraction between them is based on the fact that the other is one of the very few people they know who can understand what they are talking about. This is in contrast to Ben and Johny who, when Sue and Reed are getting all 'sciencey', will end up asking them to say the same thing but with smaller words, and ideally in English this time. This confusion is also the initial basis for the friendship between Ben and Johny, which turns into a more brotherly bond due to Ben being protective by nature and Johny liking the idea of a 'sibling' he can actually talk to and understand. |
|
