|
Post by Jerk on Mar 14, 2017 18:55:48 GMT
Who says they HAVE to use the Inhumans? They have tons of other characters at their disposal, and they've been doing great with what they have. They're only pushing the Inhumans because they're effectively trying to use them as a substitute for the X-Men. Going by your logic, that's rather petty. Also, the only reason Marvel hasn't cancelled the X-Men comics like they have with the Fantastic Four is because the X-Men comics are still selling okay. They're not doing gangbusters, but comics in general don't do gangbusters these days. Do you attend the MCU board meetings? Have you seen what their ultimate game plan requires? No. Then how do you know they don't need the Inhumans? The X-Men aren't doing gangbusters even among other other titles that aren't doing gangbusters. Did you attend those meetings?
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on Mar 14, 2017 18:57:22 GMT
Haha, it happens with smaller businesses too. And more than you would think. Ive worked for multiple small and big companies in the logistics industry in my country and seen the bigger compnaies use the innovation of smaller companies with more succes, eventually buying out the smaller company. But here is example, timely comics creates namor. DC creates Aquaman. DC creates the Atom. Marvel creates Ant-Man. At this stage Marvel has had more succes with Ant-Man. DC/WB have potential to have success with Aquaman. If they do, whats important to either company, originally creating the idea or success with the product? Success of the product, and there is no reason for them not to use the typical blonde Aquaman look unless they were fishing to try to nudge out Namor. By this point, DC knows about Marvel's success with more obscure characters when putting them on the big screen, and this was a move to make things harder for them to use Namor now that they have him back. They were watching Marvel reattain rights and acted accordingly. And thats how competitive business works.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 18:57:32 GMT
Do you attend the MCU board meetings? Have you seen what their ultimate game plan requires? No. Then how do you know they don't need the Inhumans? The X-Men aren't doing gangbusters even among other other titles that aren't doing gangbusters. Did you attend those meetings? Still can't prove to me they don't need to use the Inhumans.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 14, 2017 18:59:18 GMT
Who says they HAVE to use the Inhumans? They have tons of other characters at their disposal, and they've been doing great with what they have. They're only pushing the Inhumans because they're effectively trying to use them as a substitute for the X-Men. Going by your logic, that's rather petty. Also, the only reason Marvel hasn't cancelled the X-Men comics like they have with the Fantastic Four is because the X-Men comics are still selling okay. They're not doing gangbusters, but comics in general don't do gangbusters these days. Do you attend the MCU board meetings? Have you seen what their ultimate game plan requires? No. Then how do you know they don't need the Inhumans? The X-Men aren't doing gangbusters even among other other titles that aren't doing gangbusters. Have you attended the WB/DC board meetings? No? Then how do you know why they decided to cast Jason Momoa as Aquaman? Also, I'm fairly certain they don't really need the Inhumans, considering that the movie they were trying to make with them was cancelled, and replaced with a television show that has the same show runner who just gave Marvel their first critical dud. If the Inhumans really were so vital to the MCU, they probably wouldn't be relegated to a TV show with a controversial show runner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 19:03:02 GMT
Do you attend the MCU board meetings? Have you seen what their ultimate game plan requires? No. Then how do you know they don't need the Inhumans? The X-Men aren't doing gangbusters even among other other titles that aren't doing gangbusters. Have you attended the WB/DC board meetings? No? Then how do you know why they decided to cast Jason Momoa as Aquaman? Also, I'm fairly certain they don't really need the Inhumans, considering that the movie they were trying to make with them was cancelled, and replaced with a television show that has the same show runner who just gave Marvel their first critical dud. If the Inhumans really were so vital to the MCU, they probably wouldn't be relegated to a TV show with a controversial show runner. Their transparent actions speak for themselves. And yet Agents of SHIELD have made great use of them.
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on Mar 14, 2017 19:05:25 GMT
Did you attend those meetings? Still can't prove to me they don't need to use the Inhumans. I dont need to prove anything all your points are based on assumptions. Nothing concrete.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 14, 2017 19:13:43 GMT
Have you attended the WB/DC board meetings? No? Then how do you know why they decided to cast Jason Momoa as Aquaman? Also, I'm fairly certain they don't really need the Inhumans, considering that the movie they were trying to make with them was cancelled, and replaced with a television show that has the same show runner who just gave Marvel their first critical dud. If the Inhumans really were so vital to the MCU, they probably wouldn't be relegated to a TV show with a controversial show runner. Their transparent actions speak for themselves. And yet Agents of SHIELD have made great use of them. Transparent actions? Regardless of how AoS has been using them, they certainly don't seem to be vital to the movies, or the film they were planning to make likely wouldn't have been cancelled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 19:14:51 GMT
Still can't prove to me they don't need to use the Inhumans. I dont need to prove anything all your points are based on assumptions. Nothing concrete. Congratulations on helping me prove my own point. That was my point to Thatguy. Even though Marvel was opted to wait on the Inhumans, we don't know what their long term goal for them is within the MCU. Everything else within that universal has been pretty tightly constructed (with room for change if/when needed), so right now I have no reason to assume the Inhumans are unnecessary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 19:17:18 GMT
Their transparent actions speak for themselves. And yet Agents of SHIELD have made great use of them. Transparent actions? Regardless of how AoS has been using them, they certainly don't seem to be vital to the movies, or the film they were planning to make likely wouldn't have been cancelled. Casting a Namor look-alike as Aquaman. Not yet, but we don't know the long term goal for the future. The only thing their cancelled series proves right now is that they've decided to wait up on using them for the time being. They have a pretty full roster right now and they're likely to retire a lot of their current lineup during the Infinity Wars, freeing up a lot of room for Phase 4. Get what I'm saying here?
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 14, 2017 19:21:24 GMT
Transparent actions? Regardless of how AoS has been using them, they certainly don't seem to be vital to the movies, or the film they were planning to make likely wouldn't have been cancelled. Casting a Namor look-alike as Aquaman. Not yet, but we don't know the long term goal for the future. The only thing their cancelled series proves right now is that they've decided to wait up on using them for the time being. They have a pretty full roster right now and they're likely to retire a lot of their current lineup during the Infinity Wars, freeing up a lot of room for Phase 4. Get what I'm saying here? We've already been over this. Marvel didn't own the rights to Namor when Jason Momoa was cast as Aquaman. Also, I'm pretty sure Zack Snyder had a pretty important say in Jason Momoa being cast, and I don't think he particularly cares about giving the character dark hair just to vaguely look like Namor. No, I don't really get what you're saying here. If they really were still planning on giving the Inhumans their own film, they probably wouldn't be making a TV show right now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 19:23:28 GMT
Casting a Namor look-alike as Aquaman. Not yet, but we don't know the long term goal for the future. The only thing their cancelled series proves right now is that they've decided to wait up on using them for the time being. They have a pretty full roster right now and they're likely to retire a lot of their current lineup during the Infinity Wars, freeing up a lot of room for Phase 4. Get what I'm saying here? We've already been over this. Marvel didn't own the rights to Namor when Jason Momoa was cast as Aquaman. Also, I'm pretty sure Zack Snyder had a pretty important say in Jason Momoa being cast, and I don't think he particularly cares about giving the character dark hair just to vaguely look like Namor. No, I don't really get what you're saying here. If they really were still planning on giving the Inhumans their own film, they probably wouldn't be making a TV show right now. And you've yet to convince me otherwise. Oh, so you've been to Marvel Studio's board meetings? You know for sure what their future plans for the Inhumans are?
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 14, 2017 19:33:40 GMT
You're cycling back to that argument again? Okay then. I guess I'll just borrow what you said earlier. Marvel's transparent actions speak for themselves.
Maybe they'll do something with the Inhumans later on, but for right now, the fact that the movie was cancelled would suggest that Marvel didn't really have a clear plan for it, and was really only making it to give Fox the finger.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 19:38:20 GMT
You're cycling back to that argument again? Okay then. I guess I'll just borrow what you said earlier. Marvel's transparent actions speak for themselves.Maybe they'll do something with the Inhumans later on, but for right now, the fact that the movie was cancelled would suggest that Marvel didn't really have a clear plan for it, and was really only making it to give Fox the finger. Nice try, but no. Except not.
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on Mar 14, 2017 19:42:32 GMT
I dont need to prove anything all your points are based on assumptions. Nothing concrete. Congratulations on helping me prove my own point. That was my point to Thatguy. Even though Marvel was opted to wait on the Inhumans, we don't know what their long term goal for them is within the MCU. Everything else within that universal has been pretty tightly constructed (with room for change if/when needed), so right now I have no reason to assume the Inhumans are unnecessary. You keep telling yourself that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 19:45:52 GMT
Congratulations on helping me prove my own point. That was my point to Thatguy. Even though Marvel was opted to wait on the Inhumans, we don't know what their long term goal for them is within the MCU. Everything else within that universal has been pretty tightly constructed (with room for change if/when needed), so right now I have no reason to assume the Inhumans are unnecessary. You keep telling yourself that. Yes, because they couldn't possibly have just decided to wait for now.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 14, 2017 19:47:02 GMT
You're cycling back to that argument again? Okay then. I guess I'll just borrow what you said earlier. Marvel's transparent actions speak for themselves.Maybe they'll do something with the Inhumans later on, but for right now, the fact that the movie was cancelled would suggest that Marvel didn't really have a clear plan for it, and was really only making it to give Fox the finger. Nice try, but no. Except not. If you say so... Nice arguing with ya.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 19:50:17 GMT
Nice try, but no. Except not. If you say so... Nice arguing with ya. Fine. Fox and Warner are pure and innocent companies that live on creativity and rainbows while Marvel while a big Meaniepants out of ruin them. There, happy?
|
|
flasuss
Sophomore
@flasuss
Posts: 323
Likes: 147
|
Post by flasuss on Mar 14, 2017 19:51:39 GMT
Actually, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch weren't originally mutants. They were made into mutants sometime after their introduction. You're wrong. In fact, they even started in the Brotherhood of Evil MUTANTS. In their first appearance, their lives are saved by a mutant-chasing mob by Magneto. And attempting to defend Marvel sidelining the X-men is just pathetic. The X-men books despite no promotion actually manage to stay on a par and more often than not outsell the Avengers books. And that not even considering most of the major Marvel mutants are dead or being horribly written.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 19:55:54 GMT
Actually, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch weren't originally mutants. They were made into mutants sometime after their introduction. You're wrong. In fact, they even started in the Brotherhood of Evil MUTANTS. In their first appearance, their lives are saved by a mutant-chasing mob by Magneto. And attempting to defend Marvel sidelining the X-men is just pathetic. The X-men books despite no promotion actually manage to stay on a par and more often than not outsell the Avengers books. And that not even considering most of the major Marvel mutants are dead or being horribly written. Okay, so you're right about Quicksilver and Wanda, but I maintain my stance about the Marvel's treatment of the X-Men. It's a business decision. Nothing else. You hardly have room to complain because they're still treating the X-Men better than Fox does.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 14, 2017 19:56:31 GMT
If you say so... Nice arguing with ya. Fine. Fox and Warner are pure and innocent companies that live on creativity and rainbows while Marvel while a big Meaniepants out of ruin them. There, happy? When did I ever suggest that any one company was innocent? You're the one who seemed to be trying to suggest that Marvel is the innocent victim here, and you provided a pretty flimsy reason for why you consider that to be the case.
|
|