|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 4, 2017 22:11:11 GMT
The Execs are the ones who hire people to make their shows, and as such are meant to choose those who will do the best job for the lowest price.
NONE of those who actually wrote Discovery have any interest, background or even knowledge of Star Trek and in some cases clearly don't know even how to write. I'd also note that actual storylines are usually dreamt up by the producers (who in the case of Trek have usually also been writers in their own right) and certainly have to be green lit by them. Also keep in mind that there will be at least one studio Exec directly attached to the series as a producer. (Mythbusters, for example, had between one and two producers who came from Discovery and who had the ability to veto ideas)
CBS seems to be in the same position as Warner Brothers is with the DCEU; Both have Executives responsible for major franchises being so fixated by the potential profits and bonuses they might earn that they have failed to do their jobs in ensuring, as much as they can, that those making their products will be able to create something that at worst are of reasonable quality. In the case of CBS they didn't pick the right people, in the case of WB they failed to do the other part of their job in making sure what was being made was what they asked for*. Both refused to accept they had screwed up, doubling down and insisting their products were 'the best ever' and if you didn't agree with them there was something wrong with you; CBS comes off FAR worse here by implying if you don't like their product its because you are racist or sexist.
Both are now left with executives who are running around, having realized that their mistakes are going to cost people jobs and most likely theirs. More to the point if they get fired over these mistakes it is likely they would be basically unemployable within the entertainment industry again.
(*Zac Snyder is often cited as the reason for the DCEU's lack of success, which is unfair. The problems come not from actually hiring Snyder to make the films, but in either failing to keep an eye on what he was making or ignoring concerns - depending on if you believe rumors/leaks. This is compounded by Snyder having a history of filming far more material than what was actually needed for a film. This is certainly something WB should have been aware of given that Watchmen has some 24 minutes of additional footage in its directors cut. A film that was made for, well, DC Entertainment. BvS has over 30 minutes additional footage in its Ultimate Cut, with Snyder stating at the time that he could easily make a four hour cut of the film with existing footage.
Considering that WB probably asked for a two and a half hour film this is beyond an oversight and implies that;
A; Snyder has the ability to write, direct and produce what in effect is a second film while working on the first.
B; WB Execs never bothered to ask for a copy of the script and/or never looked at it.
C; WB Execs looked at the script, but somehow failed to notice that what they had been handed was twice as large as it needed to be for the intended run time.
D; WB Execs noticed the script was FAR too large for the intended run time, but green lit the film without asking for the script to be trimmed first.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 4, 2017 22:42:45 GMT
The Execs are the ones who hire people to make their shows, and as such are meant to choose those who will do the best job for the lowest price. NONE of those who actually wrote Discovery have any interest, background or even knowledge of Star Trek and in some cases clearly don't know even how to write. I'd also note that actual storylines are usually dreamt up by the producers (who in the case of Trek have usually also been writers in their own right) and certainly have to be green lit by them. Also keep in mind that there will be at least one studio Exec directly attached to the series as a producer. (Mythbusters, for example, had between one and two producers who came from Discovery and who had the ability to veto ideas) CBS seems to be in the same position as Warner Brothers is with the DCEU; Both have Executives responsible for major franchises being so fixated by the potential profits and bonuses they might earn that they have failed to do their jobs in ensuring, as much as they can, that those making their products will be able to create something that at worst are of reasonable quality. In the case of CBS they didn't pick the right people, in the case of WB they failed to do the other part of their job in making sure what was being made was what they asked for*. Both refused to accept they had screwed up, doubling down and insisting their products were 'the best ever' and if you didn't agree with them there was something wrong with you; CBS comes off FAR worse here by implying if you don't like their product its because you are racist or sexist. Both are now left with executives who are running around, having realized that their mistakes are going to cost people jobs and most likely theirs. More to the point if they get fired over these mistakes it is likely they would be basically unemployable within the entertainment industry again. (*Zac Snyder is often cited as the reason for the DCEU's lack of success, which is unfair. The problems come not from actually hiring Snyder to make the films, but in either failing to keep an eye on what he was making or ignoring concerns - depending on if you believe rumors/leaks. This is compounded by Snyder having a history of filming far more material than what was actually needed for a film. This is certainly something WB should have been aware of given that Watchmen has some 24 minutes of additional footage in its directors cut. A film that was made for, well, DC Entertainment. BvS has over 30 minutes additional footage in its Ultimate Cut, with Snyder stating at the time that he could easily make a four hour cut of the film with existing footage. Considering that WB probably asked for a two and a half hour film this is beyond an oversight and implies that; A; Snyder has the ability to write, direct and produce what in effect is a second film while working on the first. B; WB Execs never bothered to ask for a copy of the script and/or never looked at it. C; WB Execs looked at the script, but somehow failed to notice that what they had been handed was twice as large as it needed to be for the intended run time. D; WB Execs noticed the script was FAR too large for the intended run time, but green lit the film without asking for the script to be trimmed first.) which brings us back to "if you wanted it to fail, what would you have done differently?" |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 4, 2017 23:41:27 GMT
Actually, the issue with BvS wasn't Snyder's fault; Snyder intended for that footage to be included the entire time, and in fact most commentators I've seen indicate that the film does in fact make a lot more sense once the material's included in-context.
It was WB itself who decided to start trimming back, often without stopping to consider what was going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 5, 2017 2:16:40 GMT
Actually, the issue with BvS wasn't Snyder's fault; Snyder intended for that footage to be included the entire time, and in fact most commentators I've seen indicate that the film does in fact make a lot more sense once the material's included in-context. It was WB itself who decided to start trimming back, often without stopping to consider what was going on. Cinema chains want to be able to show films as many times during the day as possible, which is why most films have run times around two hours and few have run times beyond two and a half hours; At least for a theatrical cut. (There is also the matter of movie goers as a whole being uneasy with going to see a film that lasts 3 hours) The theatrical version of BvS comes in at just over that two and a half hours, the extended version just over three; a run time that was never going to fly and certainly NOT the run time WB mandated at the start; And if they failed to specify 'two and a half hours run time' that is a major and inexcusable screw up. Now it IS possible that the execs at the higher levels might have missed that the script they were given was going to be closer to three hours than two and a half hours initially, especially if the CGI and action scenes had not been fully fleshed out at that point. (Which they might not have been, as they would largely be the creation of the Stunt and effects teams). But the 'Four hour plus' comment by Snyder clearly indicates that the script he handed in was FAR larger than what would be needed for a two and a half hour film, almost twice the length in fact. Now either the execs never noticed this until the last minute, which is inexcusable as it means they basically gave Snyder no oversight what-so-ever. Or they noticed but did nothing, which is also inexcusable as it means they allowed studio funds to be wasted on things they were never going to be able to use. Either way, the fault here is Execs simply not doing their job and showing astonishing incompetence. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 5, 2017 3:35:07 GMT
Actually, the issue with BvS wasn't Snyder's fault; Snyder intended for that footage to be included the entire time, and in fact most commentators I've seen indicate that the film does in fact make a lot more sense once the material's included in-context. It was WB itself who decided to start trimming back, often without stopping to consider what was going on. Cinema chains want to be able to show films as many times during the day as possible, which is why most films have run times around two hours and few have run times beyond two and a half hours; At least for a theatrical cut. (There is also the matter of movie goers as a whole being uneasy with going to see a film that lasts 3 hours) The theatrical version of BvS comes in at just over that two and a half hours, the extended version just over three; a run time that was never going to fly and certainly NOT the run time WB mandated at the start; And if they failed to specify 'two and a half hours run time' that is a major and inexcusable screw up. Now it IS possible that the execs at the higher levels might have missed that the script they were given was going to be closer to three hours than two and a half hours initially, especially if the CGI and action scenes had not been fully fleshed out at that point. (Which they might not have been, as they would largely be the creation of the Stunt and effects teams). But the 'Four hour plus' comment by Snyder clearly indicates that the script he handed in was FAR larger than what would be needed for a two and a half hour film, almost twice the length in fact. Now either the execs never noticed this until the last minute, which is inexcusable as it means they basically gave Snyder no oversight what-so-ever. Or they noticed but did nothing, which is also inexcusable as it means they allowed studio funds to be wasted on things they were never going to be able to use. Either way, the fault here is Execs simply not doing their job and showing astonishing incompetence. there's a reason why cinema audiences get antsy with longer movies. especially after a 128 oz "small" pepsi. but with 2-2½ hours being the "standard" movie runtime, I'm inclined to question whether it should have been necessary to mention the runtime limit. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 5, 2017 4:15:21 GMT
They should ALWAYS specify the desired run time, especially with a writer/director like Snyder who has difficulty trimming stories down. Even if they hadn't initially, even a quick glance at the script would and should have told them that the story he intended to tell was going to be longer than what would be acceptable by a large margin. Either way this is a case of Execs simply not paying attention to an unacceptable degree.
I think they realized this, along with the alarming realization that they had based their entire DC universe on shakey ground (Man of Steel, which while not a bad film is divisive) yet still green lit FOUR major films who's production schedules prohibited any major change in direction and tone if BvS wasn't well received.
They panicked with Suicide Squad, deciding that they somehow knew better than the director, then panicked again with Justice League ordering reshoot's that required almost as much time and money as the original film was intended to have. (Justice League cost some $300 million, WITHOUT marketing. The original cost was probably intended to be $150-200 million). At this point I think the Execs realized that they could not hide their utter incompetence. And if you believe the rumors coming out decided that rather than push the release date back a few months for the effects to be finished they opted to push an unfinished film out of the door so they could get their bonuses. If true this would be because they were well aware that they would not only get no bonuses after that point, but probably wouldn't have jobs either - and based on their inability to actually do their jobs in spectacular style would probably never be employed in Hollywood again.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 5, 2017 16:54:40 GMT
They should ALWAYS specify the desired run time, especially with a writer/director like Snyder who has difficulty trimming stories down. Even if they hadn't initially, even a quick glance at the script would and should have told them that the story he intended to tell was going to be longer than what would be acceptable by a large margin. Either way this is a case of Execs simply not paying attention to an unacceptable degree. I think they realized this, along with the alarming realization that they had based their entire DC universe on shakey ground (Man of Steel, which while not a bad film is divisive) yet still green lit FOUR major films who's production schedules prohibited any major change in direction and tone if BvS wasn't well received. They panicked with Suicide Squad, deciding that they somehow knew better than the director, then panicked again with Justice League ordering reshoot's that required almost as much time and money as the original film was intended to have. (Justice League cost some $300 million, WITHOUT marketing. The original cost was probably intended to be $150-200 million). At this point I think the Execs realized that they could not hide their utter incompetence. And if you believe the rumors coming out decided that rather than push the release date back a few months for the effects to be finished they opted to push an unfinished film out of the door so they could get their bonuses. If true this would be because they were well aware that they would not only get no bonuses after that point, but probably wouldn't have jobs either - and based on their inability to actually do their jobs in spectacular style would probably never be employed in Hollywood again. The big thing to consider is that WB's having to play catch-up. When it comes to animated comic book movies and live-action shows, DC's on top. They're also quite competitive with animated shows. But theatrical movies? Disney / Marvel has been spending the time and resources necessary to create an orderly, ordered machine. It's not perfect, but each film flows into the next one and they're all working together to create a juggernaut. Fox, meanwhile, is making box office gold of their Marvel licenses. WB is seeing this and getting upset. Hence their rushing things into production and having to cover their fannies when things flop. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 5, 2017 19:17:27 GMT
Moving posts about this from the Star Trek Discussion to a new tread, as it was derailing the other tread.
My bad there, sorry about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 5, 2017 22:05:22 GMT
The issue with DC isn't about playing catchup in and of itself. Sure, this raises pressure and clearly discates that you can't quite 'do a Marvel' and take several years to show off the characters. The issue is HOW they went about this, and more to the point the littany of mistakes, misjudgements and incompetance shown by the Execs.
To be clear, they have made some decent decisions;
Man of Steel; Made as a self-contained film and only after the fact was it stated to be the start of the DCU.
Although the film was and is devisive there is nothing about the production that raises concerns. Snyder was a logical choice as a director - coming off 300 and Watchmen both of which were based on comic books. While Watchmen wasn't a commercial success Snyder can't be blamed for this as it was a big budget R rated film, and as such a gamble by the studio.
Even the tone makes sense, given the reception of the Nolan Batman films - it is questionable as to if this was the right choice for Superman, but it was probably worth the risk. Plus one thing audiences seem to have missed is that the character we see in the film isn't actually Superman at this point. By the end of the film he's only been wearing the costume for a day or so, and doesn't know what he stands for.
Deciding to start the DCU here is also a reasonable decision. You don't have to recast Superman or any of those chatacters, and you can use the events as a backdrop for later films. Keeping Snyder on board also makes sense. His track record is of giving the studio the film they asked for.
Opting for Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman and Justice League films in that order is also a decent idea. Suicide Squad would be a film about the bad guys, while Wonder Woman is a Female led Superhero film. Both are things Marvel had not done at that point, automatically making DC stand out from them. Justice League, while basically Avengers, is also a smart and reasonable choice.
Batman Vs Superman is where things start to go wrong. The idea of starting here is a good one, using your two biggest characters to kickstart the universe is a no-brainer. But they decided to insist on too much being included in the film (literally the entire Justice League) something they should have known was going to drag the film down as this was the exact same thing Marvel did with Age of Ultron. Which I should note came out before BvS started filming.
To make matters worse they also green lit four films all at the same time, all of which were based on Man of Steel and all of which would start filming in such a short period of time that if audiences didn't respond well to what DC was doing they had no way of changing them without expensive reshoots.
Now how I would have handled it;
Batman vs Superman would be renamed 'Dawn of Justice' and split into two parts;
Part 1; Batman vs Superman. Introduces the new Batman, reintroduces Superman and brings in Wonder Woman so audiences get too see DC's 'Big Three' and the heart of the Justice League. Luthor and the rest of the Justice League don't appear, instead we focus on Batman and Superman trying to work out what they stand for. On the surface they have very different ideals, which is what leads to the conflict between them, but both have flaws in their arguments that they are just not seeing. Wonder Woman is there investigating a bigger threat and realises that these two men could be vital to combatting that threat. The film concludes with a similar epic fight between Batman and Superman, in the end as they are both worn out and charging forward Wonder Woman drops in, throwing Superman through a wall with ease then countering the best Bat's can throw at her. (showing that she has the power to go toe to toe with Superman and the fighting skills to match Batman). As a now furious Superman rises out of the rubble, eyes glowing and ready to really let rip Dianna simply throws Batman at him. As the two Heroes lie in the rubble, ego badly dented at being taken out so quickly - even if part of this is because they have been fighting for a while - they have their first bonding moment of the 'what just happened?' and 'She's not with you is she?' variety. We would have just seen Dianna the warrior, the powerhouse and earlier Dianna the princess. So now we show the more compasionate and smart side of Wonder Woman as she stands there, ahnds on hips, and proceeds to lecture the two of them like they were naughty children. In the process she shows she has worked out exactly why they are fighting, points out the flaws in their logic which gives them another bonding moment of 'I should do something...you want to go first?' and makes them start to realise that they are not really that different. She warns them of the great evil she knows is coming, and asks for their help.
The film ends with the three standing there, having agreed to stop fighting - Marking the very Dawn of the Justice League. Followed by...something heading towards Earth.
Part 2; Doomsday
Introduces the remaining members of the Justice League and Doomsday - the latter having no connection to Lex Luthor at all.
The film starts with Doomsday arriving on Earth, literally dropping out of the sky. (This was the thing we saw heading for Earth at the end of part 1) Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman go out and fight Doomsday, but while they are able to trap him realise they are not powerful enough to defeat him on their own. Batman goes off to recuit 'someone I've heard of in Central City' (The Flash) Superman goes off to Star Labs to see if they might have anything that could help. While he is there there is an accident (hinted to have been caused by an outside force, specifically Lex Luthor) that wrecks the lab but creates Cyborg. Who opts to follow Superman and give him some help. Wonder Woman mentions 'someone who 'might' help' and is next seen standing on a beach. Aquaman comes out of the water, his first words being 'What do you want Amazon?' making it clear that Atlantians and Amazons are not on the best of terms. Indeed even Dianna seems to be less than delighted at having to ask Aquaman for help. Unlike the others Dianna is not successful in recruiting someone to help.
Doomsday returns, this time facing the almost Justice League, who do well but are having problems dealing with him until Aquaman shows up to help. Even so it becomes clear that Doomsday is far too powerful for any one of them to overcome. This is the momemt when the Justice League is truely born. Wonder Woman notes that they have to set their diferences aside and work together, something Superman agrees with giving a rousing speech. When asked if he has a plan he says 'no, but he does' nodding at Batman. Showing that the two of them have gone from enemies to friends.
Batman does indeed have a plan of attack, utilising the powers and skills of each individual. The battle from this point is tough, but clearly going in favour of the good guys. Superman may or may not sacrifice himself to bring down Doomsday in the process.
The film ends with all of the (surviving) members agreeing that working together was fun, or if Superman sacrified himself promising not to forget his sacrifice. It is also hinted that Doomsday was actually a shock weapon sent to test the defenses of worlds for Darksyde.
Reasons for this approach; Having two films allows you to introduce the characters and world in greater detail, compressing the story telling in each part so they follow on but also so each part flows well on its own. A two parter is also something Marvel hadn't done, and as long as part one isn't a total mess part two should pull in audiences who want to see how the story ends.
Just as importantly it buys time to see what elements are working and which are not. While you can't make major changes to part two, the basic story is simple enough, and the setup such, that you can tinker with some elements to lighten the tone if you want or need to.
You hint of a greater evil than Doomsday, setting up Justice League, as well as there being some ill feeling between Amazons and Atlantians allowing for this to be explored in a future Aquaman film. (Why should we listen to you? You worked with an Amazon!)
This also allows you to delay starting production on Suicide squad, as filming wouldn't need to start until after part one was out, although Wonder Woman could go ahead since its set in a much earlier period. Justice League can be written specifically based on reaction to the earlier film, and can be more cost effective as you no longer have to waste time showing the League being recuited. Plus you already have a reason for them to come together - they did so before.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Dec 5, 2017 23:59:23 GMT
I wonder if part of the reason they did Suicide Squad when they did was that it was fresh off the release of Deadpool. Deadpool (Feb 2016) was a huge success with the anti-hero type of main character, so they may have thought they could capitalize on it with Suicide Squad (Aug 2016).
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 6, 2017 0:21:05 GMT
to condense the problems DC is having into a sound bite: Marvel built a cinematic universe. DC is playing catch-up.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 6, 2017 0:27:54 GMT
I wonder if part of the reason they did Suicide Squad when they did was that it was fresh off the release of Deadpool. Deadpool (Feb 2016) was a huge success with the anti-hero type of main character, so they may have thought they could capitalize on it with Suicide Squad (Aug 2016). There were also rumors that the follow-ups to "Amazing Spider-Man 2" would have included a "Sinister Six" project, so perhaps that spurred them on as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 6, 2017 0:42:14 GMT
I wonder if part of the reason they did Suicide Squad when they did was that it was fresh off the release of Deadpool. Deadpool (Feb 2016) was a huge success with the anti-hero type of main character, so they may have thought they could capitalize on it with Suicide Squad (Aug 2016). Warner Brothers started working on a Suicide Squad back in early 2009, with the writing and casting taking place between September October 2014 and filming starting in April 2015. Deadpool was being worked on as early as 2004, Ryan Reynolds the motivating factor from the start. However even though they had a fair amount of talent working in this it was in development hell until the test footage was 'leaked' in July 2014, at which point Fox green lit the film. Casting took place in early 2015 with filming taking place between March and May. So no, Suicide Squad was not a reaction to Deadpool. WB may well have been aware that there was a Deadpool film in development, but given that it had been in production hell for five years before they started any kind of work on Suicide Squad had no reason to think twice about that. Even when Deadpool was green lit WB likewise had not reason to pay much attention to it, let alone think about copying it; Deadpool was always a solo, R rated film with a $60 million (originally) budget (half that of a basic AA film) and a mid February release date. All of which (along with only getting green lit after the test footage 'leaked') would have indicated to WB that Fox had no confidence in the film at all. Not something you'd want to try and copy, or could with a PG-13 rated team up film. The filming dates also don't match up, Suicide Squad started filming halfway through Deadpool's filming. And while they might have had Deadpool in mind when asked to 'lighten the tone', they only realized they had a problem with the somber tone of the DCU with the reaction to BvS, three months before the film was finished. (reediting aside) More likely they were thinking of Civil War, which hit screens two months earlier. Simply put there was not enough time for WB to attempt to 'copy' Deadpool, and initially no reason to even think of doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 6, 2017 0:44:48 GMT
I wonder if part of the reason they did Suicide Squad when they did was that it was fresh off the release of Deadpool. Deadpool (Feb 2016) was a huge success with the anti-hero type of main character, so they may have thought they could capitalize on it with Suicide Squad (Aug 2016). There were also rumors that the follow-ups to "Amazing Spider-Man 2" would have included a "Sinister Six" project, so perhaps that spurred them on as well. Its not a rumor, it was revealed in the Sony Hack and from other sources before that, that Sony intended to follow Amazing Spiderman 2 with Sinister Six, Venom and a 'female superhero from the Spiderman universe'. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 6, 2017 6:47:16 GMT
I need to ask a couple of questions for clarity.
DCEU thread title... yes it needed a title, but, for those who dunno, "Whussat den?."
Standard film length being aimed at above 2 hrs...
You getting into dances with wolves and LOTR Lord of the Rings territory there, and LOTR was split into sizeable chunks?.
Dances with wolves.... its interesting, my own "Native" name comes up as Dances with Difficulty?..
Deadpool, he deserved his own film, because, how else do you tell his story?.
Reaction to that could have been "Here hold my Beer", or, as it was in this case from DC, "We got nufin?.."
It is stated above that DC is playing catch-up...
Yeah, aint they?.
Marvel at this time have had the upper hand in many things, and DC are in need to quit whining and man up and show us what they got.
I am still waiting?.
Sinister Six is what it is, a collection of smaller characters that need their own story line, but not enough for each of them to make a whole film out of?.
However, Suicide squad wasnt really like that, it had a story all of its own, that needed teamwork, and on the back of the success of the films where Marvel characters have had to play nice together, this was a smaller storyline that could stand on its own, that also just happened to bring new characters to the screen.
I have said it before, DC needs the back-stage crew that do Marvel films to help them develop a good script and make it awesome.
Editorial...:- Blue touchpaper lit, time to retire to safe distance.?.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Dec 6, 2017 12:21:56 GMT
Detective Comics Extended Universe.
DCEU.
The Sinsiter Six is a story line from the SpiderMan comics were six of the most popular villians band together in an attempt to defeat Spiderman , Dr Octopus, Kraven the Hunter, Sandman, Mysterio, The Vulture and The Scorpion. Naturally eventually he defeats them all. They would not be a movie on and of themselves just be the next set of opponents that Spiderman would have to face.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Dec 6, 2017 12:25:14 GMT
There were also rumors that the follow-ups to "Amazing Spider-Man 2" would have included a "Sinister Six" project, so perhaps that spurred them on as well. Its not a rumor, it was revealed in the Sony Hack and from other sources before that, that Sony intended to follow Amazing Spiderman 2 with Sinister Six, Venom and a 'female superhero from the Spiderman universe'. A strong female heroine from the Spiderman universe, I suppose it depends on who they have the rights to Black Cat or Spiderwoman? I don't think they would have the rights to SpiderGwen, who is possibly now the most popular female Spider-Hero. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 6, 2017 15:48:03 GMT
The question as to who owns the rights to Spider-Woman doesn't have a clear answer. Technically Sony has the rights to all Spider-Man characters, but Spider-Woman for the most part hasn't actually been considered to be part of Spider-Man's world anymore than Thor or Captain America are. Literally in fact as like those characters as while she has worked with Spidey over the years and had her own series she's largely been a member of the Avengers.
As such Spider-Woman is probably in the same kind of Grey area as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, in which two companies both have reasonable claims to the film rights. Although there have been enough versions of the character these claims would be stronger or weaker depending on which version they wanted to go with. For example the Ultimate Spider-Woman was a clone of Peter Parker, and played a supporting role in the Ultimate Spider-Man titles and as such would probably fall into Sony's domain. The original Spider-Woman, Jessica Drew, in comparison had no connection to Spider-Man (in universe at least) and was almost entirely an Avengers character. Meaning Marvel would have a much stronger claim to use that version.
I think they were talking about a Black Cat film, which would be less problematical for all concerned.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 6, 2017 19:30:12 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. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 6, 2017 20:02:12 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. to be honest, the infinite spider man reboots/rewrites became annoying to me. I view it as one significant flaw in the marvel universe. |
|
