|
Post by dazz on Jul 6, 2018 14:21:30 GMT
I think how it works is elements of the characters become public domain at different times, in relation to their creation, so when Superman and co become PD at first only things established in their first appearances are free to use, so things like the source of Supermans powers, the degree of those powers, his kryptonian name even will all have to be 1st iteration, so no flight or world ruining powers sort of thing and Kal-L not Kal-El.
That twilight letter is hilarious, but then what do you expect from twilight fans, I mean even the creator seems quite ignorant themselves, I recall reading something like they didn't know vampires are meant to be hurt by sunlight when they first started writing the first book, just made shit up and realised or was told later on that a bunch of the shit they made up has no history in vampire lore.
Gotta ask how is Batwoman related to Bruce? surely if he had living relatives they should have taken him in after his parents death, you know instead of leaving him in the care of his butler, also before that "revelation" had he ever mentioned having any sort of family remaining? or is this a long lost blood connection where they found you great uncle/aunt Wayne/Waynetta W. Wayne was disowned from the family for public lewdness and changed their name to Kane or something else and simply never spoke of their heritage and they only figured this out due to Batwoman needing a tissue donation and that's how they figured out she and Bruce share a familial connection? Or is it all just retcon bollocks that gets overlooked?
Thanks for explaining that Dazz and stargazer1682 and I do recall reading when Superman becomes a public domain character they will only be able to use certain side characters and villains that were in use in the first few years of the character’s existence and overtime more will be added and I can’t say I have read the first comic book of ‘Superman’ or any of the really early stuff from the decade he started in and the oldest I have read were comic books from the 1960s (maybe 50s too) so I’m kinda confused over what characters they will or won’t be able to use like as far as I can tell they should be able to use Lois Lane ‘cause she debuted in the first comic book (Action Comics #1) but Jimmy Olsen was introduced in ‘Action Comics #6’ which came out the same year and was said to be Anonymous and it wasn’t until 1941 he got the name Jimmy Olsen so I am not sure if they could use him.
Other characters like Lex Luthor and Perry White didn’t appear until 1940 in Superman #7 (which the two coincidentally both debuted in) two years after Action Comics #1 and if we dig deeper Supergirl didn’t debut until 1959,Pete Ross didn’t debut until 1961, Cat Grant didn’t debut until 1987 and Lana Lang didn’t debut until 1950 so they are going to be missing a lot of characters and unless Lex Luthor can be used since it was only two years later other writers might hold off on using the character until more characters become available to use. Batman sounds easier to do ‘cause a number of Batman’s characters like Robin, Catwoman, the Joker, Hugo Strange, The Penguin and Scarecrow had their first appearances in the firsttwo years of Batman’s creation. Alfred, however, didn’t debut until 1943 and Barbara Gordon didn’t appear until 1967 so they would be off the table especially the latter for some time.
The 'Twilight' letter was funny and I was just telling another member about that earlier today and how people are now accusing the 'Firestarter' remake and Charlie McGee in particular of being a ripoff of a character from 'Stranger Things' even though the original movie came out in 1984 and the novel came out in 1980 and it always surprises me how some people accuse things from decades ago of being ripoffs of things that are only very recent and don't bother to do their research before accusing others of copying but the creation of the Werewolf is perhaps the most bizarre of all 'cause I thought most people would have seen werewolves in other movies, TV shows or books before 'Twilight' and it goes to show how Horror the 'Twilight' fanbase were since they didn't know simple things like that and it reminds of some 'Supernatural' fans who weren't real Horror fans at all and complained about anything scary happening on the show when 'Supernatural' is meant to be a Horror TV show about two hunters that go around saving people from ghosts, demons, vampires, werewolves, witches, angels etc.
Stargazer is very spot on with Batwoman and there has been a lot of retconning with Bat Family characters over the years and even in the New 52 they did a big retcon with Batgirl, Black Canary and The Huntress when they went from Gail Simone's 'Batgirl New 52' series and 'Birds of Prey New 52' to 'Batgirl of Burnside' and 'Black Canary New 52' and all of a sudden Batgirl was evidently younger than she was in Gail's series and had a new look, new costume and new personality a lot of the things that happened to her in Gail's series weren't mentioned again and it stands out the most when you read the 'Batman Eternal' series 'cause that started before the retcon and near the end she had been retconned. Then there was the whole thing where they changed Black Canary from Dinah Laurel Lance in 'Birds of Prey New 52' to 'Dinah Drake in 'Black Canary New 52' and 'Batgirl and Birds of Prey Rebirth' and there close to no recollection of any of the events that happened in the previous series and Huntress had a massive makeover and personality change too that was never explained. After Gail left it was like they decided all the previous issues in the New 52 didn't matter and they would start afresh. As far as I know and as Stargazer said I think the copyright thing is down to the second type of IP being locked down, hence why I said when Superman becomes PD only issue 1 ip will be allowed, and even that will be likely to be scrutinised because whilst the Superman & Batman costumes stayed a lot the same there has been differences in them over the years, and a single 1 off appearance of a Superman outfit or Batsuit can be enough to sue people over, like Stargazer said I think it'll be mostly merchandising that will be putting the PD stuff to use, as I don't see any but the lowest sort of not gonna get work elsewhere types of publications or networks/studios that will try to muscle in on WB's properties because WB & DC are huge in their fields and people wont want to be associated with trying to "steal" from them, it maybe legal but it would be the equivilant of running outlaw back in the territory days of wrestling, no one wants to be black balled by the big leagues, especially as they are just going to be getting bigger and stronger with AT&T.
The only thing with twilight I could think is maybe how they did the werewolves, I haven't seen more than 20 minutes of one of those pos films, but were they maybe the first main interpretation of werewolves turning into actual wolves, as most of what I recall growing up was Werewolves either became Wolf-Man like or monstrous bipedal wolf beasts, Buffy had the weird gorilla style werewolves but since twilight the vast majority of major werewolf takes seems to be they turn into actual wolves, so maybe that's their gripe but then 2 of those major takes are TVD & True Blood both based on books predating twishite iirc, so they may have always been meant to turn into actual wolves meaning they weren't ripping off shit.
Of all the things I consider Supernatural scary isn't one of them, but yeah it's a horror style show it's meant to be bloody and violent and shit, and not like they didn't set that up from the get go either, first episode has a murderous ghost and a demon killing in it so it kind of lays it out right from the outset.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Jul 7, 2018 18:30:26 GMT
Dude, you have never seen An American Werewolf in London? Because this classic horror-comedy by John Landis has a werewolf that looks like a wolf. A very large and pissed off wolf, but a wolf nonetheless. And it came out in 1981.
And best of all? it's inspired by real events.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jul 7, 2018 21:49:47 GMT
That's a wolf like monster, not an actual wolf though, like I said it's only been since the twishite bollocks has actual normal looking wolves seemingly been the go to for this stuff, sometimes they look a little larger but still very clearly actual wolf like, not the more enjoyable imo classic werewolf designs...fucking twilight bollocks.
And no never really seen it, caught bits and pieces but I was never into horror stuff as a kid, I should check it out though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2018 11:50:48 GMT
Thanks for explaining that Dazz and stargazer1682 and I do recall reading when Superman becomes a public domain character they will only be able to use certain side characters and villains that were in use in the first few years of the character’s existence and overtime more will be added and I can’t say I have read the first comic book of ‘Superman’ or any of the really early stuff from the decade he started in and the oldest I have read were comic books from the 1960s (maybe 50s too) so I’m kinda confused over what characters they will or won’t be able to use like as far as I can tell they should be able to use Lois Lane ‘cause she debuted in the first comic book (Action Comics #1) but Jimmy Olsen was introduced in ‘Action Comics #6’ which came out the same year and was said to be Anonymous and it wasn’t until 1941 he got the name Jimmy Olsen so I am not sure if they could use him.
Other characters like Lex Luthor and Perry White didn’t appear until 1940 in Superman #7 (which the two coincidentally both debuted in) two years after Action Comics #1 and if we dig deeper Supergirl didn’t debut until 1959,Pete Ross didn’t debut until 1961, Cat Grant didn’t debut until 1987 and Lana Lang didn’t debut until 1950 so they are going to be missing a lot of characters and unless Lex Luthor can be used since it was only two years later other writers might hold off on using the character until more characters become available to use. Batman sounds easier to do ‘cause a number of Batman’s characters like Robin, Catwoman, the Joker, Hugo Strange, The Penguin and Scarecrow had their first appearances in the firsttwo years of Batman’s creation. Alfred, however, didn’t debut until 1943 and Barbara Gordon didn’t appear until 1967 so they would be off the table especially the latter for some time.
The 'Twilight' letter was funny and I was just telling another member about that earlier today and how people are now accusing the 'Firestarter' remake and Charlie McGee in particular of being a ripoff of a character from 'Stranger Things' even though the original movie came out in 1984 and the novel came out in 1980 and it always surprises me how some people accuse things from decades ago of being ripoffs of things that are only very recent and don't bother to do their research before accusing others of copying but the creation of the Werewolf is perhaps the most bizarre of all 'cause I thought most people would have seen werewolves in other movies, TV shows or books before 'Twilight' and it goes to show how Horror the 'Twilight' fanbase were since they didn't know simple things like that and it reminds of some 'Supernatural' fans who weren't real Horror fans at all and complained about anything scary happening on the show when 'Supernatural' is meant to be a Horror TV show about two hunters that go around saving people from ghosts, demons, vampires, werewolves, witches, angels etc.
Stargazer is very spot on with Batwoman and there has been a lot of retconning with Bat Family characters over the years and even in the New 52 they did a big retcon with Batgirl, Black Canary and The Huntress when they went from Gail Simone's 'Batgirl New 52' series and 'Birds of Prey New 52' to 'Batgirl of Burnside' and 'Black Canary New 52' and all of a sudden Batgirl was evidently younger than she was in Gail's series and had a new look, new costume and new personality a lot of the things that happened to her in Gail's series weren't mentioned again and it stands out the most when you read the 'Batman Eternal' series 'cause that started before the retcon and near the end she had been retconned. Then there was the whole thing where they changed Black Canary from Dinah Laurel Lance in 'Birds of Prey New 52' to 'Dinah Drake in 'Black Canary New 52' and 'Batgirl and Birds of Prey Rebirth' and there close to no recollection of any of the events that happened in the previous series and Huntress had a massive makeover and personality change too that was never explained. After Gail left it was like they decided all the previous issues in the New 52 didn't matter and they would start afresh. As far as I know and as Stargazer said I think the copyright thing is down to the second type of IP being locked down, hence why I said when Superman becomes PD only issue 1 ip will be allowed, and even that will be likely to be scrutinised because whilst the Superman & Batman costumes stayed a lot the same there has been differences in them over the years, and a single 1 off appearance of a Superman outfit or Batsuit can be enough to sue people over, like Stargazer said I think it'll be mostly merchandising that will be putting the PD stuff to use, as I don't see any but the lowest sort of not gonna get work elsewhere types of publications or networks/studios that will try to muscle in on WB's properties because WB & DC are huge in their fields and people wont want to be associated with trying to "steal" from them, it maybe legal but it would be the equivilant of running outlaw back in the territory days of wrestling, no one wants to be black balled by the big leagues, especially as they are just going to be getting bigger and stronger with AT&T.
The only thing with twilight I could think is maybe how they did the werewolves, I haven't seen more than 20 minutes of one of those pos films, but were they maybe the first main interpretation of werewolves turning into actual wolves, as most of what I recall growing up was Werewolves either became Wolf-Man like or monstrous bipedal wolf beasts, Buffy had the weird gorilla style werewolves but since twilight the vast majority of major werewolf takes seems to be they turn into actual wolves, so maybe that's their gripe but then 2 of those major takes are TVD & True Blood both based on books predating twishite iirc, so they may have always been meant to turn into actual wolves meaning they weren't ripping off shit.
Of all the things I consider Supernatural scary isn't one of them, but yeah it's a horror style show it's meant to be bloody and violent and shit, and not like they didn't set that up from the get go either, first episode has a murderous ghost and a demon killing in it so it kind of lays it out right from the outset.
In the world of copyright, a year or two is no different than 50. If something still falls under that protection, and especially if it's something valuable and owned by a company that has the clout and inclination to fight anyone who might infringe on it, they will and they'll win. That's why I think we can expect more generalized commercial use of the likes of Batman or Superman at first; unlicensed merchandise with their likenesses, which is arguably going to be where the money will really be made. There are only so many places that will have the resources to do some type of out right adaptation - tv, movies, print. Print might be easier than the other two, but outside the internet, I think most authors will run into the same issue with publishers as I see happening in the other mediums; a certain level of cautious hesitation the first few years the material is in the public domain, to make sure the circumstances don't suddenly turn against them, or that anything being used could be claimed as owned property. The New 52 was such a cluster fuck. Ohh okay. I am confused as to why it is only the first issue that will go in the public domain when the following issues were released not long after the first one and they said more superheroes will enter the public domain as time goes on so wouldn’t have mean it would only be another month or 2 until the second and third issues of ‘Action Comics entered the public domain too? What I find interesting about some of these old characters entering the public domain is their actual creators (if they are still alive by the time they are entered) will have the rights to use their characters again and they are the ones who will most likely profit off it the most ‘cause they will be able to write such and such by the creator of this character and there were a number of them that didn’t leave on good terms with the companies.
I remember reading the Siegel Family had a number of Superman comics that were written by Jerry Siegel that were never released and with their rocky relationship with DC and Warner Bros I am not surprised they haven’t given them to DC to release them but when Superman goes into the Public Domain after a few years we might see some of those being released. I am also confused over the movie and TV rights of characters that are in the Public Domain ‘cause I briefly recall reading Disney had the movie rights for John Carter and Dejah Thoris but apparently they don’t 'cause I heard the people making the new 'Red Sonja' are looking to adapt other characters under Dynamite Entertainment if the movie is successful and Dejah Thoris is one of them so that must mean Disney doesn't own the movie rights of the character. 'The Phantom' is now in the Public Domain but they have sadly wasted him and I would like to see somebody make a great movie of 'The Phantom' 'cause the only reason we have all these superhero movies is 'cause of 'The Phantom.'
One thing I forgot to mention on my previous post is Dynamite Entertainment and IDW have and are currently using Batman in their comic books to team with other characters and there are oddly some Silver Age Batman comic books that are being re-released under IDW instead of DC so it appears that DC must be working with those companies or given them the clearance to use Batman or they would have been sued by now. I haven’t read any of the latest ones they are doing but Batman also teamed up with characters under different comic book companies in the past and it is a shame we can’t have more crossovers like that in the movies ‘cause they happen very often in comic books especially with characters under independent companies and there was recently a ‘Hack/Slash/ Vampirlla’ team up series for example and ‘Hack/Slash’ is under Image Comics and ‘Vampirella’ is under Dynamite.
With Sony owning the film rights of The Crow they could have a ‘Spider-Man/The Crow’ team up film which would be like nothing we have ever had before or expected to see on the big screen and Time Warner could make ‘The Mask’ part of the DCEU and have the character turn up in a ‘Batman’ film to everybody’s surprise since both companies have the rights over those characters and if you can have Freddy and Jason in a movie together The Crow with Spider-Man or Venom should be possible and it would mark the first time we have seen a team up like the comic books.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jul 14, 2018 12:34:34 GMT
Yeah that's how it works Deb, the day the Superman name and base details become PD it will only be issue #1 Superman IP details that can be used, so you know how the S has always been around but the design has changed even down to the color, so someone could use issue 1 design & plot but they couldn't use anything introduced in issue #2 or #3 until a month or 2 later when those issues become pd as well, so they can do Superman but unless they want to literally retell the original Superman comics they have to create their own stories that don't in anyway border on copying any existing copyrighted Superman IPs, so theres no introducing a kryptonian war criminal called Admiral Vahb or an techno orgainic AI world killer called Smartypants or anything like that.
So playing it safe we may get a lot of B/W knock off shit just so DC cant sure because this specific combination of colours we never used until 15 years later or some shit,, but even the iconic S logo may not be pd for months or years later as wasn't the original shield an actual triangle not the iconic emblem we know today?
What we might get though is DC and later Marvel making sort of partnership deals to officially allow more creators to utilise their characters but where the big studios have a grip on the content but in such allow for others to use more of the litany of the characters IP catalogue, rather than making people jump through the legal hoops and possibly fucking up shit or even creating a unconnected version of the characters people may prefer in the long run which DC will have no claim to.
I think though Sony has the movie rights to the characters Marvel still holds final say over certain things and crossovers maybe one of them, maybe why Fox never crossed over X-Men & F4 they may own the rights to use the characters but not to do anything they please with them, doesn't explain DC though, but I would love for The Mask to be apart of DC in anyway as that's a fun character.
As for the John Carter stuff, anything Disney aquires the film rights to may and likely has the same caveats as the Marvel film rights where they are dependent on projects being in development by the studios to retain the rights in an ongoing manner, John Carter was in 2012 the rights may have lapsed by now unless Disney were to have acquired the entire IP and not just film adaptation rights, that or because they haven't moved on anything else since it maybe the rights will lapse and people are just preparing for in a few years when they can do something with the character should they obtain the rights and such.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jul 14, 2018 13:52:00 GMT
As Dazz said, it's all pegged to the date of original publication. 95 years to be specific, when owned by a company. That's why I expect to see the initial public domain use to lean more towards the commercial merchandise, but the likenesses on anything and everything that to date would otherwise need to be licensed; while people in the know, especially publishers or producers, will stress caution and patience for more intellectual use through literature or other adaptations, allowing such hot new propties time to cool, but also achieve some equalibrium in regards to the attributes that don't immediately fall into the public domain, but may quickly follow suit. So like the S shield was initially more like a stylized police shield, becoming an inverted triangle by issue 7, and only becoming a diamond after the Fleischer cartoons. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_logoThe term used to be much shorter. So it would be pretty much impossible for any original authors to still be around to take another crack at their work, but that's sort of the point of the term length; to have it be long enough for an author to enjoy the fruits of their labor and not see the loss of those rights during their life. Which is a reasonable sentiment when talking about individuals, but I don't have the same affinity for companies. Although even then, copyright term limits for works created by individuals is a little different; instead of a flat 95 years, it's the life of the author plus 70 years. That to me makes things even more convulted, and also unnecessarily long. I guess I just don't appreciate my prospective heirs as much as some others, but I don't see the need to tie up something for nearly three quarters of a century after my death. Especially considering that, assuming I live to be an average, ripe old age, in all likelihood I wouldn't have even met the person or persons who would still be alive and in control of that work by time that term ends. One thing I just wondered about with Superman is if anyone - either DC or Siegel &. Shuster's families - will argue that the very first appearance of Superman, whatever they sold to DC, and consequently that inital design of the character, falls under the individual author copyright, which wouldn't expire until 70 years after the last author died. Whether or not that would hold up, especially after the lengthy court battles denying Siegel and Shuster's claims to the property, or what it would mean for the rights to the version of the character as it would later become under the full control of DC would remain to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Jul 17, 2018 14:27:43 GMT
Maybe they're branching out in ways to let the fans down?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 11:37:54 GMT
Yeah that's how it works Deb, the day the Superman name and base details become PD it will only be issue #1 Superman IP details that can be used, so you know how the S has always been around but the design has changed even down to the color, so someone could use issue 1 design & plot but they couldn't use anything introduced in issue #2 or #3 until a month or 2 later when those issues become pd as well, so they can do Superman but unless they want to literally retell the original Superman comics they have to create their own stories that don't in anyway border on copying any existing copyrighted Superman IPs, so theres no introducing a kryptonian war criminal called Admiral Vahb or an techno orgainic AI world killer called Smartypants or anything like that. So playing it safe we may get a lot of B/W knock off shit just so DC cant sure because this specific combination of colours we never used until 15 years later or some shit,, but even the iconic S logo may not be pd for months or years later as wasn't the original shield an actual triangle not the iconic emblem we know today? What we might get though is DC and later Marvel making sort of partnership deals to officially allow more creators to utilise their characters but where the big studios have a grip on the content but in such allow for others to use more of the litany of the characters IP catalogue, rather than making people jump through the legal hoops and possibly fucking up shit or even creating a unconnected version of the characters people may prefer in the long run which DC will have no claim to. I think though Sony has the movie rights to the characters Marvel still holds final say over certain things and crossovers maybe one of them, maybe why Fox never crossed over X-Men & F4 they may own the rights to use the characters but not to do anything they please with them, doesn't explain DC though, but I would love for The Mask to be apart of DC in anyway as that's a fun character. As for the John Carter stuff, anything Disney aquires the film rights to may and likely has the same caveats as the Marvel film rights where they are dependent on projects being in development by the studios to retain the rights in an ongoing manner, John Carter was in 2012 the rights may have lapsed by now unless Disney were to have acquired the entire IP and not just film adaptation rights, that or because they haven't moved on anything else since it maybe the rights will lapse and people are just preparing for in a few years when they can do something with the character should they obtain the rights and such. As Dazz said, it's all pegged to the date of original publication. 95 years to be specific, when owned by a company. That's why I expect to see the initial public domain use to lean more towards the commercial merchandise, but the likenesses on anything and everything that to date would otherwise need to be licensed; while people in the know, especially publishers or producers, will stress caution and patience for more intellectual use through literature or other adaptations, allowing such hot new propties time to cool, but also achieve some equalibrium in regards to the attributes that don't immediately fall into the public domain, but may quickly follow suit. So like the S shield was initially more like a stylized police shield, becoming an inverted triangle by issue 7, and only becoming a diamond after the Fleischer cartoons. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_logoThe term used to be much shorter. So it would be pretty much impossible for any original authors to still be around to take another crack at their work, but that's sort of the point of the term length; to have it be long enough for an author to enjoy the fruits of their labor and not see the loss of those rights during their life. Which is a reasonable sentiment when talking about individuals, but I don't have the same affinity for companies. Although even then, copyright term limits for works created by individuals is a little different; instead of a flat 95 years, it's the life of the author plus 70 years. That to me makes things even more convulted, and also unnecessarily long. I guess I just don't appreciate my prospective heirs as much as some others, but I don't see the need to tie up something for nearly three quarters of a century after my death. Especially considering that, assuming I live to be an average, ripe old age, in all likelihood I wouldn't have even met the person or persons who would still be alive and in control of that work by time that term ends. One thing I just wondered about with Superman is if anyone - either DC or Siegel &. Shuster's families - will argue that the very first appearance of Superman, whatever they sold to DC, and consequently that inital design of the character, falls under the individual author copyright, which wouldn't expire until 70 years after the last author died. Whether or not that would hold up, especially after the lengthy court battles denying Siegel and Shuster's claims to the property, or what it would mean for the rights to the version of the character as it would later become under the full control of DC would remain to be seen. Well, thanks for letting me know both of you. That makes sense and it sounds like they are going to have to wait a while before they can really do anything with the characters but I am quite curious about new characters that borderline on infringing copyright and how much they can get away with ‘cause over the years DC and Marvel have both done that with some superheroes they created and gotten away with it and ‘Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman’ was able to get away with using some Superman villains like General Zod by renaming them Lord Noir which kinda looked silly since I don’t see any reason why they couldn’t have used General Zod at the time especially when he wasn’t one of the villains that was said to be lined up for the scrapped ‘Superman Lives’ but then again I was just saying to cjdull76 earlier how it makes no sense why Deathstroke is off the table when there appears to be no concrete plans for the next appearance the character is going to make in the DCEU.
I didn’t know the copyright laws with comic books were so specific a person could get sued ‘cause of a colour they used was the same or similar especially in the case of Superman ‘cause Spider-Man has very similar colours but I suppose when it comes to actually creating a ‘Superman’ comic book which uses the ‘Superman’ name they might be far more strict. It is kinda confusing though and any person who attempts to do it once Superman and Batman enter the Public Domain is going to have to really study what they can and can’t use ‘cause slip-ups could easily happen. I have two early pictures of the classic ‘S’ logo Superman used to have and you are right, it was more of an upside down triangle but the logo in the first ‘Action Comics’ appears to be more of a circle and only become a diamond after the Fleischer cartoons as Stargazer pointed out. Stargazer, you bring up an interesting point about Siegel and Shuster's families and there have been a lot of court battles between them and DC over the years for not just Superman but Superboy and I remember reading they actually beat DC and won the rights back for Superboy but then it went back to court again and DC got them back.
DC and Marvel are already letting some other companies use their characters as I mentioned before so I think we might see them making more partnership deals in the future too like with Marvel there have been team up comics between Witchblade and Wolverine and Painkiller Jane and the Punisher for example and those happened a while ago now so they appear to be open to it with comic books but I think movies and TV shows are out of the question ‘cause the only time we get to see the likes of Superman and Spider-Man together on screen is when it is children dressed up as them or people going to costume parties and it will probably be a long time before we see DC and Marvel characters teaming up with each other in movies and TV shows. We have far more chances of seeing Superman team up with Caitlin Fairchild from ‘Gen13’ since Jim Lee sold a percentage of the Wildstorm Universe t to DC when he left Image Comics.
I often wondered why Fox never had the X Men and The Fantastic Four crossover in a movie ‘cause it is something a lot of fans would love to see if handled right but maybe you are right and Marvel have the final say in what companies like Fox can and can’t do with characters. The situation with the MCU and the Incredible Hulk and Universal seems to be a messy one though since they are stopping them from making another movie of ‘The Incredible Hulk’ and now seems to be the perfect time to make a new ‘Incredible Hulk’ movie with Mark Ruffalo after the latest ‘Thor’ movie but they don't appear to be interested in making one and Mark said in an interview not long ago he thinks by the time there is another movie he will be too old to play the character. I think Universal could be what is holding up She Hulk too and if Universal own She Hulk they might not be able to use her 'cause of her connection to The Incredible Hulk.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jul 24, 2018 12:53:54 GMT
I think Incredible Hulk maybe more Disney than Disney wants to let on, Universal don't own the rights to Hulk as far as I know hence why Hulk can appear in MCU films so long as it's not a Hulk solo film, universal hold the distribution rights though, or more specifically right of first refusal, Marvel has the right to make a Hulk film they just have to offer Universal the choice to distribute the film though, which Disney is obviously not interested in hence why they brought the distribution rights for Avengers & IM 3 back from Paramount back in the day, Disney just doesn't want to share the loot, also whoever distributes not only gets a cut of the box office but also has control of the marketing which is probably where Marvel is wary of also, they can do it all in house and seems clear that's what they want to do, She Hulk film wise maybe caught in the same net as Hulk but that shouldn't impact Marvel doing a live action show, clearly they can do an animated show about either without problems.
As for the colour thing I meant specifically in regard to people selling Superman shirts or paraphernalia with the S logo, DC have done various versions of this over the years and I assume any actual colour change of the logo or just coating of the logo ala superman being covered in orange paint creating an orange S is likely all copyrighted, so even when the classic S becomes PD it maybe as pedantically litigated that it has to be the exact shade of red, blue & yellow as used in those issues of the comics to date, so like B/W maybe fine but Black & silver would be a no no because that was introduced until decades later same for the red & black logo, or the specific dimensions of the logo as pertaining to the versions used in the films or TV shows and their texture designs.
As for why Zod couldn't be used in L&C I have no clue maybe it wasn't a WB production and they just licensed Superman and a specific number of hi characters for the show and then the show didn't want to spend more for Zod and DC weren't going to let them use him for free.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2018 11:38:06 GMT
I think Incredible Hulk maybe more Disney than Disney wants to let on, Universal don't own the rights to Hulk as far as I know hence why Hulk can appear in MCU films so long as it's not a Hulk solo film, universal hold the distribution rights though, or more specifically right of first refusal, Marvel has the right to make a Hulk film they just have to offer Universal the choice to distribute the film though, which Disney is obviously not interested in hence why they brought the distribution rights for Avengers & IM 3 back from Paramount back in the day, Disney just doesn't want to share the loot, also whoever distributes not only gets a cut of the box office but also has control of the marketing which is probably where Marvel is wary of also, they can do it all in house and seems clear that's what they want to do, She Hulk film wise maybe caught in the same net as Hulk but that shouldn't impact Marvel doing a live action show, clearly they can do an animated show about either without problems. As for the colour thing I meant specifically in regard to people selling Superman shirts or paraphernalia with the S logo, DC have done various versions of this over the years and I assume any actual colour change of the logo or just coating of the logo ala superman being covered in orange paint creating an orange S is likely all copyrighted, so even when the classic S becomes PD it maybe as pedantically litigated that it has to be the exact shade of red, blue & yellow as used in those issues of the comics to date, so like B/W maybe fine but Black & silver would be a no no because that was introduced until decades later same for the red & black logo, or the specific dimensions of the logo as pertaining to the versions used in the films or TV shows and their texture designs. As for why Zod couldn't be used in L&C I have no clue maybe it wasn't a WB production and they just licensed Superman and a specific number of hi characters for the show and then the show didn't want to spend more for Zod and DC weren't going to let them use him for free. They do? I thought Universal owned the film rights of ‘The Incredible Hulk’ just like Fox owns the film rights for ‘X-Men’ and ‘The Fantastic Four’ and Sony owns the rights for ‘Spider-Man’, ‘Ghost Spider/ SpiderGwen’, ‘Silk’, ‘Venom’ and ‘The Prowler’, among others but Universal was letting the MCU use The Incredible Hulk in movies like Sony is letting the MCU use Spider-Man now but if that is the case it definitely sounds like Disney doesn’t want to share the loot with other companies and maybe they are hoping Universal will sell them the distribution rights. They are probably only willing to make an exception with ‘Spider-Man’ and Sony ‘cause ‘Spider-Man’ is Marvel’s biggest selling superhero of all time and they see a lot of money in having him in the MCU. What they plan on doing with him going forward remains to be seen with Sony having their own plans for other heroes and villains that are a part of the Spiderverse like Venom, Silk and Morbius, the Living Vampire.
What is interesting is they are saying Sony’s Spiderverse will be separate from the MCU but there is a chance they will be merged in the future if movies like ‘Venom’ and ‘Silk’ are hits and with talk about Mysterio being in ‘Spider-Man: Homecoming 2’ but Sony saying they are still making the ‘Sinister Six’ movie I wonder if we will have two different actors playing Mysterio or if they will take Mysterio out of the ‘Sinister Six’ and replace him with another villain. How they have the ‘Sinister Six’ existing in a universe without Spider-Man is a question itself ‘cause the main reason the group comes together in the comic books was to defeat Spider-Man but Sony might replace Spider-Man with Spider Woman, Ghost Spider/ SpiderGwen or Spider-Man 2099 for all we know. There was talk before about having Miles Morales in Sony’s Spiderverse but it appears Miles is off the table now.
Yeah. You are right about ‘The Incredible Hulk’ and ‘She Hulk’ TV shows and I can’t recall if I posted it on the last forum we were both on but there were some sites reporting there was a new TV show of ‘The Incredible Hulk’ in development in 2016-2017 and I don’t know what happened to it ‘cause it is obviously not going through now or we would have heard about it but to have had a TV show in the works like that it must mean Universal has no control over it being on TV. I think they may have axed it due to budget reasons ‘cause unless they were going to have a bigger actor play the Hulk like they did on the Bill Bixby show the CGI for the Hulk might have been too expensive. Thanks for explaining the colours with the Superman comic books and from what I can gather on ‘Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman’ it was a Warner Bros TV show on ABC and the writers have admitted Lord Nor was General Zod and they were originally going to use the name General Zod but were stopped by Warner Bros so they renamed him Lord Nor and another interesting note is the character, Rachel was originally Lana and they had to change that too but then later Warner Bros let them use the Lana Lang name and they made another character.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jul 29, 2018 12:27:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jul 29, 2018 18:42:34 GMT
They do? I thought Universal owned the film rights of ‘The Incredible Hulk’ just like Fox owns the film rights for ‘X-Men’ and ‘The Fantastic Four’ and Sony owns the rights for ‘Spider-Man’, ‘Ghost Spider/ SpiderGwen’, ‘Silk’, ‘Venom’ and ‘The Prowler’, among others but Universal was letting the MCU use The Incredible Hulk in movies like Sony is letting the MCU use Spider-Man now but if that is the case it definitely sounds like Disney doesn’t want to share the loot with other companies and maybe they are hoping Universal will sell them the distribution rights. They are probably only willing to make an exception with ‘Spider-Man’ and Sony ‘cause ‘Spider-Man’ is Marvel’s biggest selling superhero of all time and they see a lot of money in having him in the MCU. What they plan on doing with him going forward remains to be seen with Sony having their own plans for other heroes and villains
I think when Marvel Studios first started Universal owned the rights to Hulk as a movie but with Marvel offering to make the film and pay the production of it whilst Universal took care of advertising & distribution Universal were cool with loaning Hulk back to Marvel, but I guess where Universal didn't technically make Incredible Hulk it didn't count towards their use by period so Hulk's rights reverted back to Marvel a few years later hence why Hulk's rights reverted but never required a downtime between appearances to allow the rights to lapse.
But I don't know how the right of refusal came about, maybe it was a loophole either Universal or Marvel snuck in during their deal for Incredible Hulk, if Universal maybe had no interest in making new Hulk films and knew IH wouldn't reset the clock on the rights but wanted to hold Marvel to cutting them in they negotiated this deal, or Marvel were crafty and knew Hulk was a character they could slot better in ensembles so they signed this deal knowing they could cut Universal out anytime they wanted to.
Why Marvel just doesn't buy back the rights is beyond me, or just eat a cut for a few movies, they didn't seem to mind doing so for IM3 & Avengers, which makes me think either A: Universal knows how much Paramount fucked themselves by selling off their share of over $2.5b in movie sales, or 2: Universals rights extend far beyond what Paramounts did, and were talking maybe half a doxen films or so, as the only reason must be Universal want a lot for these rights because Disney shelled out like $100m for the last 2 paramount film rights.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Jul 30, 2018 21:45:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jul 31, 2018 0:54:26 GMT
Only in it said pretty much what I said but far more intelligibly but that doesn't mean much as I tend to waffle and get distra...oh birdie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2018 11:45:25 GMT
They do? I thought Universal owned the film rights of ‘The Incredible Hulk’ just like Fox owns the film rights for ‘X-Men’ and ‘The Fantastic Four’ and Sony owns the rights for ‘Spider-Man’, ‘Ghost Spider/ SpiderGwen’, ‘Silk’, ‘Venom’ and ‘The Prowler’, among others but Universal was letting the MCU use The Incredible Hulk in movies like Sony is letting the MCU use Spider-Man now but if that is the case it definitely sounds like Disney doesn’t want to share the loot with other companies and maybe they are hoping Universal will sell them the distribution rights. They are probably only willing to make an exception with ‘Spider-Man’ and Sony ‘cause ‘Spider-Man’ is Marvel’s biggest selling superhero of all time and they see a lot of money in having him in the MCU. What they plan on doing with him going forward remains to be seen with Sony having their own plans for other heroes and villains
I think when Marvel Studios first started Universal owned the rights to Hulk as a movie but with Marvel offering to make the film and pay the production of it whilst Universal took care of advertising & distribution Universal were cool with loaning Hulk back to Marvel, but I guess where Universal didn't technically make Incredible Hulk it didn't count towards their use by period so Hulk's rights reverted back to Marvel a few years later hence why Hulk's rights reverted but never required a downtime between appearances to allow the rights to lapse.
But I don't know how the right of refusal came about, maybe it was a loophole either Universal or Marvel snuck in during their deal for Incredible Hulk, if Universal maybe had no interest in making new Hulk films and knew IH wouldn't reset the clock on the rights but wanted to hold Marvel to cutting them in they negotiated this deal, or Marvel were crafty and knew Hulk was a character they could slot better in ensembles so they signed this deal knowing they could cut Universal out anytime they wanted to.
Why Marvel just doesn't buy back the rights is beyond me, or just eat a cut for a few movies, they didn't seem to mind doing so for IM3 & Avengers, which makes me think either A: Universal knows how much Paramount fucked themselves by selling off their share of over $2.5b in movie sales, or 2: Universals rights extend far beyond what Paramounts did, and were talking maybe half a doxen films or so, as the only reason must be Universal want a lot for these rights because Disney shelled out like $100m for the last 2 paramount film rights.
Okay. That makes the most sense but how long have Universal owned these rights to ‘The Incredible Hulk’ like did they have them back when they made ‘The Incredible Hulk’ TV show with Bill Bixby and the TV movies like ‘The Incredible Hulk Returns’ and ‘The Trial of The Incredible Hulk’ back in the 80s or was that something they didn’t get until the ‘Hulk’ (2003) movie? The 2003 movie was very poorly received here and I don’t know if it was the same in the UK but a lot of people had been waiting for a new on screen adaption of ‘The Incredible Hulk’ after the TV show and were expecting it to be one of the biggest superhero movies of the year and it was a big letdown. I think the failure of ‘Hulk’ lead to the character’s losing some of his popularity and while ‘The Incredible Hulk’ wasn’t as bad it didn’t do the character justice either.
Before that though the most popular and well known Marvel superheroes were Spider-Man, X- Men, The Incredible Hulk and The Fantastic Four here and just about everybody I knew was aware of those superhero names or had heard about them but after ‘Hulk’ flopped and ‘Iron Man’ become a success Iron Man kinda took over The Incredible Hulk’s spot. I think the failure of two live action films is what is preventing new movies from going through whether that is on Marvel’s end or Universal’s end and there might be a fear that the next movie will follow the same pattern but I think they should not let that stop them from trying again ‘cause there have been a few movie franchises that have had some bombs and then turned around and had successful movies again and some movie franchises haven’t had their most successful movie until their third or fourth movie like ‘A Nightmare On Elm Street.’
I am curious over how many characters Universal hold rights over aside from The Incredible Hulk and possibly She Hulk ‘cause Sony has just revealed they have the movie rights for 900 Marvel characters and some of them would most likely include SpiderGwen, The Prowler, Silk, Venom, Black Cat, Silver Sable, Nightwatch and Mobius the Living Vampire and Fox owns the rights to X Men, Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer and Kaz-ar among others but She Hulk may have been separated much like the Punisher was separated from ‘Spider-Man’ and Black Panther was separated from the ‘Fantastic Four’ which is where both characters originally debuted. ‘Cloak and Dagger’ is confusing too ‘cause they debuted in ‘Spider-Man’ and we have the ‘Cloak and Dagger’ TV show but Sony might own the movie rights due to them originating as ‘Spider-Man’ characters. Have you heard about Black Cat and Silver Sable? It appears they are now both getting solo movies and Sony have just announced a number of Marvel movies including 4 with female leads.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 10, 2018 12:14:17 GMT
I think when Marvel Studios first started Universal owned the rights to Hulk as a movie but with Marvel offering to make the film and pay the production of it whilst Universal took care of advertising & distribution Universal were cool with loaning Hulk back to Marvel, but I guess where Universal didn't technically make Incredible Hulk it didn't count towards their use by period so Hulk's rights reverted back to Marvel a few years later hence why Hulk's rights reverted but never required a downtime between appearances to allow the rights to lapse.
But I don't know how the right of refusal came about, maybe it was a loophole either Universal or Marvel snuck in during their deal for Incredible Hulk, if Universal maybe had no interest in making new Hulk films and knew IH wouldn't reset the clock on the rights but wanted to hold Marvel to cutting them in they negotiated this deal, or Marvel were crafty and knew Hulk was a character they could slot better in ensembles so they signed this deal knowing they could cut Universal out anytime they wanted to.
Why Marvel just doesn't buy back the rights is beyond me, or just eat a cut for a few movies, they didn't seem to mind doing so for IM3 & Avengers, which makes me think either A: Universal knows how much Paramount fucked themselves by selling off their share of over $2.5b in movie sales, or 2: Universals rights extend far beyond what Paramounts did, and were talking maybe half a doxen films or so, as the only reason must be Universal want a lot for these rights because Disney shelled out like $100m for the last 2 paramount film rights.
Okay. That makes the most sense but how long have Universal owned these rights to ‘The Incredible Hulk’ like did they have them back when they made ‘The Incredible Hulk’ TV show with Bill Bixby and the TV movies like ‘The Incredible Hulk Returns’ and ‘The Trial of The Incredible Hulk’ back in the 80s or was that something they didn’t get until the ‘Hulk’ (2003) movie? The 2003 movie was very poorly received here and I don’t know if it was the same in the UK but a lot of people had been waiting for a new on screen adaption of ‘The Incredible Hulk’ after the TV show and were expecting it to be one of the biggest superhero movies of the year and it was a big letdown. I think the failure of ‘Hulk’ lead to the character’s losing some of his popularity and while ‘The Incredible Hulk’ wasn’t as bad it didn’t do the character justice either.
Before that though the most popular and well known Marvel superheroes were Spider-Man, X- Men, The Incredible Hulk and The Fantastic Four here and just about everybody I knew was aware of those superhero names or had heard about them but after ‘Hulk’ flopped and ‘Iron Man’ become a success Iron Man kinda took over The Incredible Hulk’s spot. I think the failure of two live action films is what is preventing new movies from going through whether that is on Marvel’s end or Universal’s end and there might be a fear that the next movie will follow the same pattern but I think they should not let that stop them from trying again ‘cause there have been a few movie franchises that have had some bombs and then turned around and had successful movies again and some movie franchises haven’t had their most successful movie until their third or fourth movie like ‘A Nightmare On Elm Street.’
I am curious over how many characters Universal hold rights over aside from The Incredible Hulk and possibly She Hulk ‘cause Sony has just revealed they have the movie rights for 900 Marvel characters and some of them would most likely include SpiderGwen, The Prowler, Silk, Venom, Black Cat, Silver Sable, Nightwatch and Mobius the Living Vampire and Fox owns the rights to X Men, Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer and Kaz-ar among others but She Hulk may have been separated much like the Punisher was separated from ‘Spider-Man’ and Black Panther was separated from the ‘Fantastic Four’ which is where both characters originally debuted. ‘Cloak and Dagger’ is confusing too ‘cause they debuted in ‘Spider-Man’ and we have the ‘Cloak and Dagger’ TV show but Sony might own the movie rights due to them originating as ‘Spider-Man’ characters. Have you heard about Black Cat and Silver Sable? It appears they are now both getting solo movies and Sony have just announced a number of Marvel movies including 4 with female leads.
My understanding is Universal acquired the Hulk film rights in the 90's when Marvel were on the verge of going out of business/bankrupt and selling the film rights to anyone who was interested, I never heard She Hulk being sold off to anyone else so I assume her rights go along with Hulks, especially as she's one of those characters whose story you cant tell without Hulk's, and Marvel did have creative oversight written into the deals, so you cant monkey with their backstory to much because Marvel can just be dicks and say uhuhuh that's not how the story goes.
That also explains why maybe Black Panther & Punisher can be separated from Spidey & F4, because though they got introduced under those runs their story isn't entwined with theres, and they had their own extensive runs and viable franchises in their own right also, also the Sony owning 900 characters doesn't surprise me, Spidey is one Marvel's biggest asset's and also that the deal includes new characters created for the Spidey franchise means they acquired hundreds more in the last 20 years as Marvel introduced Miles Morales and a slew of other newer characters, but also keep in mind just how many of those characters are just the supporting cast who they cant do anything with outside a Spidey film like an Aunt May, Uncle Ben, JJ, Betty and so on, but sounds better saying we have the rights to 900 characters than to say we have the rights to 20-30 characters we maybe able to do something with.
Thing with Hulk is if he isn't viable I get it but then why use him as a draw for Ragnarok? he either sells or he doesn't, and if he doesn't sell that great then know your ceiling, if they honestly though $400m was a push for a Hulk film then just make a Hulk film for less than $100m production and $70m advertising, that way if it does $350m you make a profit anyway, don't just think if it doesn't make $600m what the point, and I do think it's just a dick measuring contest at this point with Disney being like fuck you he's our character we aint paying you to let us make a movie and Unioversal being all fuck you we own the distribution rights so pay us or fuck off.
Not surprised about Silver & Black I have been doubting that for like a year now, we never heard any movement on it at all which made it seem unlikely it was coming out, I can see a possible Black Cat film actually happening though now, not sure about Silver Sable but if they do I will give it a watch, but I don't put any credibility into Sony announcing shit at this point, they have so little clue on what their doing it's embarrassing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2018 12:27:36 GMT
Okay. That makes the most sense but how long have Universal owned these rights to ‘The Incredible Hulk’ like did they have them back when they made ‘The Incredible Hulk’ TV show with Bill Bixby and the TV movies like ‘The Incredible Hulk Returns’ and ‘The Trial of The Incredible Hulk’ back in the 80s or was that something they didn’t get until the ‘Hulk’ (2003) movie? The 2003 movie was very poorly received here and I don’t know if it was the same in the UK but a lot of people had been waiting for a new on screen adaption of ‘The Incredible Hulk’ after the TV show and were expecting it to be one of the biggest superhero movies of the year and it was a big letdown. I think the failure of ‘Hulk’ lead to the character’s losing some of his popularity and while ‘The Incredible Hulk’ wasn’t as bad it didn’t do the character justice either.
Before that though the most popular and well known Marvel superheroes were Spider-Man, X- Men, The Incredible Hulk and The Fantastic Four here and just about everybody I knew was aware of those superhero names or had heard about them but after ‘Hulk’ flopped and ‘Iron Man’ become a success Iron Man kinda took over The Incredible Hulk’s spot. I think the failure of two live action films is what is preventing new movies from going through whether that is on Marvel’s end or Universal’s end and there might be a fear that the next movie will follow the same pattern but I think they should not let that stop them from trying again ‘cause there have been a few movie franchises that have had some bombs and then turned around and had successful movies again and some movie franchises haven’t had their most successful movie until their third or fourth movie like ‘A Nightmare On Elm Street.’
I am curious over how many characters Universal hold rights over aside from The Incredible Hulk and possibly She Hulk ‘cause Sony has just revealed they have the movie rights for 900 Marvel characters and some of them would most likely include SpiderGwen, The Prowler, Silk, Venom, Black Cat, Silver Sable, Nightwatch and Mobius the Living Vampire and Fox owns the rights to X Men, Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer and Kaz-ar among others but She Hulk may have been separated much like the Punisher was separated from ‘Spider-Man’ and Black Panther was separated from the ‘Fantastic Four’ which is where both characters originally debuted. ‘Cloak and Dagger’ is confusing too ‘cause they debuted in ‘Spider-Man’ and we have the ‘Cloak and Dagger’ TV show but Sony might own the movie rights due to them originating as ‘Spider-Man’ characters. Have you heard about Black Cat and Silver Sable? It appears they are now both getting solo movies and Sony have just announced a number of Marvel movies including 4 with female leads.
My understanding is Universal acquired the Hulk film rights in the 90's when Marvel were on the verge of going out of business/bankrupt and selling the film rights to anyone who was interested, I never heard She Hulk being sold off to anyone else so I assume her rights go along with Hulks, especially as she's one of those characters whose story you cant tell without Hulk's, and Marvel did have creative oversight written into the deals, so you cant monkey with their backstory to much because Marvel can just be dicks and say uhuhuh that's not how the story goes.
That also explains why maybe Black Panther & Punisher can be separated from Spidey & F4, because though they got introduced under those runs their story isn't entwined with theres, and they had their own extensive runs and viable franchises in their own right also, also the Sony owning 900 characters doesn't surprise me, Spidey is one Marvel's biggest asset's and also that the deal includes new characters created for the Spidey franchise means they acquired hundreds more in the last 20 years as Marvel introduced Miles Morales and a slew of other newer characters, but also keep in mind just how many of those characters are just the supporting cast who they cant do anything with outside a Spidey film like an Aunt May, Uncle Ben, JJ, Betty and so on, but sounds better saying we have the rights to 900 characters than to say we have the rights to 20-30 characters we maybe able to do something with.
Thing with Hulk is if he isn't viable I get it but then why use him as a draw for Ragnarok? he either sells or he doesn't, and if he doesn't sell that great then know your ceiling, if they honestly though $400m was a push for a Hulk film then just make a Hulk film for less than $100m production and $70m advertising, that way if it does $350m you make a profit anyway, don't just think if it doesn't make $600m what the point, and I do think it's just a dick measuring contest at this point with Disney being like fuck you he's our character we aint paying you to let us make a movie and Unioversal being all fuck you we own the distribution rights so pay us or fuck off.
Not surprised about Silver & Black I have been doubting that for like a year now, we never heard any movement on it at all which made it seem unlikely it was coming out, I can see a possible Black Cat film actually happening though now, not sure about Silver Sable but if they do I will give it a watch, but I don't put any credibility into Sony announcing shit at this point, they have so little clue on what their doing it's embarrassing.
Yeah. I heard Marvel sold the film rights for a lot of their characters when they were on the verge of going bankrupt in the 90s and they sold the Punisher, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Blade, Namor and Men In Black to multiple studios and they have got a lot of those back now but I don’t think they have the rights for ‘Men In Black’ and much like ‘Spider-Man’ Sony have got them. I also don’t think they own the rights to Adam Warlock since they didn’t have him in ‘Infinity War’ and they announced he is not going to be in ‘The Avengers 4’ either which leaves me to believe Fox owns Adam Warlock ‘cause he debuted in the ‘Fantastic Four’ and they might not have separated his rights like they did with Black Panther ‘cause they didn’t think he was a big enough character to make movies of at the time.
We were talking about the rights for ‘Namor’ on the other forum last year and I wasn’t sure if Marvel owned the movie rights or not but Kevin Feige has since spoken about them in an interview with IGN describing them as “complicated’ and in a similar situation to the solo rights for ‘The Incredible Hulk’ with Universal owning the distribution rights but I believe there could be more to it than that ‘cause they can use The Incredible Hulk in team movies but it doesn’t look like they can use Namor at all so it might be a while before he shows up on screen. I am interested in seeing how they add the 'X Men' into the MCU when the Fox deal is approved and I heard there could be a holdup with 'The Fantastic Four' but I am not sure if that includes the Silver Surfer 'cause the Silver Surfer has had his own comic books and been separate from 'The Fantastic Four' for a while so I am actually surprised Fox even has the rights unless they sold the Silver Surfer to Fox separately when they sold 'The Fantastic Four' to them. If that is the case and they get the Silver Surfer before 'The Fantastic Four' they could introduce the character separately or with the X-Men.
Sony has the rights for a lot of Marvel characters at the moment and many are not superheroes as you mentioned but what surprises me is how many Fox has the rights to that they have wasted and there have been hundreds of different X Men we have yet to see once in a movie and a number of them had their own solo comic books but Fox has been sparingly using them. The wait for the 'Gambit' movie has been crazy and they should have made the movie years ago or had him in the original trilogy. I am not sure why they are having such a problem with that looking at how many years this movie has been said to be in development and it makes you wonder how they can even make 'X-Men' movies when it is so difficult for them to make a 'Gambit' movie. With Marvel getting the X-Men soon the movie might not even be made and Gambit may end up being in a new rebooted X-Men movie instead. I would rather see them go back to the start and use the main mutants and I am not a big fan of always remaking everything but I think the X-Men would benefit from being rebooted with Wolverine, Cyclops, Rogue, Storm, Beast, Gambit, Jubilee, Jean, Archangel, Morph and Emma Frost in leading roles.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 18, 2018 16:46:38 GMT
My understanding is Universal acquired the Hulk film rights in the 90's when Marvel were on the verge of going out of business/bankrupt and selling the film rights to anyone who was interested, I never heard She Hulk being sold off to anyone else so I assume her rights go along with Hulks, especially as she's one of those characters whose story you cant tell without Hulk's, and Marvel did have creative oversight written into the deals, so you cant monkey with their backstory to much because Marvel can just be dicks and say uhuhuh that's not how the story goes.
That also explains why maybe Black Panther & Punisher can be separated from Spidey & F4, because though they got introduced under those runs their story isn't entwined with theres, and they had their own extensive runs and viable franchises in their own right also, also the Sony owning 900 characters doesn't surprise me, Spidey is one Marvel's biggest asset's and also that the deal includes new characters created for the Spidey franchise means they acquired hundreds more in the last 20 years as Marvel introduced Miles Morales and a slew of other newer characters, but also keep in mind just how many of those characters are just the supporting cast who they cant do anything with outside a Spidey film like an Aunt May, Uncle Ben, JJ, Betty and so on, but sounds better saying we have the rights to 900 characters than to say we have the rights to 20-30 characters we maybe able to do something with.
Thing with Hulk is if he isn't viable I get it but then why use him as a draw for Ragnarok? he either sells or he doesn't, and if he doesn't sell that great then know your ceiling, if they honestly though $400m was a push for a Hulk film then just make a Hulk film for less than $100m production and $70m advertising, that way if it does $350m you make a profit anyway, don't just think if it doesn't make $600m what the point, and I do think it's just a dick measuring contest at this point with Disney being like fuck you he's our character we aint paying you to let us make a movie and Unioversal being all fuck you we own the distribution rights so pay us or fuck off.
Not surprised about Silver & Black I have been doubting that for like a year now, we never heard any movement on it at all which made it seem unlikely it was coming out, I can see a possible Black Cat film actually happening though now, not sure about Silver Sable but if they do I will give it a watch, but I don't put any credibility into Sony announcing shit at this point, they have so little clue on what their doing it's embarrassing.
Yeah. I heard Marvel sold the film rights for a lot of their characters when they were on the verge of going bankrupt in the 90s and they sold the Punisher, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Blade, Namor and Men In Black to multiple studios and they have got a lot of those back now but I don’t think they have the rights for ‘Men In Black’ and much like ‘Spider-Man’ Sony have got them. I also don’t think they own the rights to Adam Warlock since they didn’t have him in ‘Infinity War’ and they announced he is not going to be in ‘The Avengers 4’ either which leaves me to believe Fox owns Adam Warlock ‘cause he debuted in the ‘Fantastic Four’ and they might not have separated his rights like they did with Black Panther ‘cause they didn’t think he was a big enough character to make movies of at the time.
We were talking about the rights for ‘Namor’ on the other forum last year and I wasn’t sure if Marvel owned the movie rights or not but Kevin Feige has since spoken about them in an interview with IGN describing them as “complicated’ and in a similar situation to the solo rights for ‘The Incredible Hulk’ with Universal owning the distribution rights but I believe there could be more to it than that ‘cause they can use The Incredible Hulk in team movies but it doesn’t look like they can use Namor at all so it might be a while before he shows up on screen. I am interested in seeing how they add the 'X Men' into the MCU when the Fox deal is approved and I heard there could be a holdup with 'The Fantastic Four' but I am not sure if that includes the Silver Surfer 'cause the Silver Surfer has had his own comic books and been separate from 'The Fantastic Four' for a while so I am actually surprised Fox even has the rights unless they sold the Silver Surfer to Fox separately when they sold 'The Fantastic Four' to them. If that is the case and they get the Silver Surfer before 'The Fantastic Four' they could introduce the character separately or with the X-Men.
Sony has the rights for a lot of Marvel characters at the moment and many are not superheroes as you mentioned but what surprises me is how many Fox has the rights to that they have wasted and there have been hundreds of different X Men we have yet to see once in a movie and a number of them had their own solo comic books but Fox has been sparingly using them. The wait for the 'Gambit' movie has been crazy and they should have made the movie years ago or had him in the original trilogy. I am not sure why they are having such a problem with that looking at how many years this movie has been said to be in development and it makes you wonder how they can even make 'X-Men' movies when it is so difficult for them to make a 'Gambit' movie. With Marvel getting the X-Men soon the movie might not even be made and Gambit may end up being in a new rebooted X-Men movie instead. I would rather see them go back to the start and use the main mutants and I am not a big fan of always remaking everything but I think the X-Men would benefit from being rebooted with Wolverine, Cyclops, Rogue, Storm, Beast, Gambit, Jubilee, Jean, Archangel, Morph and Emma Frost in leading roles.
I think F4 is the oddest situation that gets overlooked a lot because F4 wasn't originally licensed to Fox they were licensed to someone else who then licensed them to Fox, which how contracts and shit work could mean even with Disney acquiring Fox they don't acquire the film rights right away, but ultimately will get them back because Fox wont do anything with the property in the next year, which if then when Fox is fully absorbed by Disney the rights revert to whoever owns the rights they have like 6-12 months to sell the rights to someone else, get a script made, cast the film, get a director and so on, all of which Disney could hold up by contesting the rights to run out the clock, and also who is going to want to risk doing the F4 at this point other than Marvel who actually own all the toys you want to really make a different F4 film, and who have the rights to do anything they want with them.
Adam Warlock I think is back with Marvel because he's where Gunn was headed for GOTG Vol 3, which is why he wasn't in IW. again it's Disney they own it so they can alter the stories however they feel, they don't have to stick to outlines, but his character was set up in a post credit scene of GOTG Vol 2.
As for Namor I have no clue, could just be a thing of Disney being like nah fuck it he's too similar to Aquaman for the general public to distinguish between them, or they just haven't felt ready to introduce him yet, I mean you think they only introduced magic magic into the MCU 2 years ago, and that was leading into IW, Marvel are smart enough to know they don't want to throw everything into the mix at once because it can overwhelm people, Namor maybe the key to Avengers 5 for all we know, but their not announcing it now because they don't want to take focus off of Avengers 4.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 11:46:54 GMT
Yeah. I heard Marvel sold the film rights for a lot of their characters when they were on the verge of going bankrupt in the 90s and they sold the Punisher, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Blade, Namor and Men In Black to multiple studios and they have got a lot of those back now but I don’t think they have the rights for ‘Men In Black’ and much like ‘Spider-Man’ Sony have got them. I also don’t think they own the rights to Adam Warlock since they didn’t have him in ‘Infinity War’ and they announced he is not going to be in ‘The Avengers 4’ either which leaves me to believe Fox owns Adam Warlock ‘cause he debuted in the ‘Fantastic Four’ and they might not have separated his rights like they did with Black Panther ‘cause they didn’t think he was a big enough character to make movies of at the time.
We were talking about the rights for ‘Namor’ on the other forum last year and I wasn’t sure if Marvel owned the movie rights or not but Kevin Feige has since spoken about them in an interview with IGN describing them as “complicated’ and in a similar situation to the solo rights for ‘The Incredible Hulk’ with Universal owning the distribution rights but I believe there could be more to it than that ‘cause they can use The Incredible Hulk in team movies but it doesn’t look like they can use Namor at all so it might be a while before he shows up on screen. I am interested in seeing how they add the 'X Men' into the MCU when the Fox deal is approved and I heard there could be a holdup with 'The Fantastic Four' but I am not sure if that includes the Silver Surfer 'cause the Silver Surfer has had his own comic books and been separate from 'The Fantastic Four' for a while so I am actually surprised Fox even has the rights unless they sold the Silver Surfer to Fox separately when they sold 'The Fantastic Four' to them. If that is the case and they get the Silver Surfer before 'The Fantastic Four' they could introduce the character separately or with the X-Men.
Sony has the rights for a lot of Marvel characters at the moment and many are not superheroes as you mentioned but what surprises me is how many Fox has the rights to that they have wasted and there have been hundreds of different X Men we have yet to see once in a movie and a number of them had their own solo comic books but Fox has been sparingly using them. The wait for the 'Gambit' movie has been crazy and they should have made the movie years ago or had him in the original trilogy. I am not sure why they are having such a problem with that looking at how many years this movie has been said to be in development and it makes you wonder how they can even make 'X-Men' movies when it is so difficult for them to make a 'Gambit' movie. With Marvel getting the X-Men soon the movie might not even be made and Gambit may end up being in a new rebooted X-Men movie instead. I would rather see them go back to the start and use the main mutants and I am not a big fan of always remaking everything but I think the X-Men would benefit from being rebooted with Wolverine, Cyclops, Rogue, Storm, Beast, Gambit, Jubilee, Jean, Archangel, Morph and Emma Frost in leading roles.
I think F4 is the oddest situation that gets overlooked a lot because F4 wasn't originally licensed to Fox they were licensed to someone else who then licensed them to Fox, which how contracts and shit work could mean even with Disney acquiring Fox they don't acquire the film rights right away, but ultimately will get them back because Fox wont do anything with the property in the next year, which if then when Fox is fully absorbed by Disney the rights revert to whoever owns the rights they have like 6-12 months to sell the rights to someone else, get a script made, cast the film, get a director and so on, all of which Disney could hold up by contesting the rights to run out the clock, and also who is going to want to risk doing the F4 at this point other than Marvel who actually own all the toys you want to really make a different F4 film, and who have the rights to do anything they want with them.
Adam Warlock I think is back with Marvel because he's where Gunn was headed for GOTG Vol 3, which is why he wasn't in IW. again it's Disney they own it so they can alter the stories however they feel, they don't have to stick to outlines, but his character was set up in a post credit scene of GOTG Vol 2.
As for Namor I have no clue, could just be a thing of Disney being like nah fuck it he's too similar to Aquaman for the general public to distinguish between them, or they just haven't felt ready to introduce him yet, I mean you think they only introduced magic magic into the MCU 2 years ago, and that was leading into IW, Marvel are smart enough to know they don't want to throw everything into the mix at once because it can overwhelm people, Namor maybe the key to Avengers 5 for all we know, but their not announcing it now because they don't want to take focus off of Avengers 4.
You’re right. It does sound like there is a strange situation going on at the moment with the Fantastic Four’s movie rights and it would be weird if Marvel got the film rights for the ‘X Men’ but had to wait longer to get their hands on ‘The Fantastic Four’ and I am surprised Disney haven’t taken over things themselves and made an offer to the other person who is licensing ‘The Fantastic Four’ to Fox ‘cause surely if they could buy the rights off that person they should be able to use the Fantastic Four when they acquire the X Men and other characters unless that person is a big fan of the Fantastic Four and wants to hold on to the movie rights so they are involved in future movies or they want more money from Disney than they are willing to pay. Whatever it is it seems strange and I don’t understand why it takes Disney so long to absorb Fox and why it can’t be done in one day.
What are they doing? From the look of things a lot of the Marvel movies Fox was making have been put on hold now and we were supposed to get two ‘X Men’ movies this year but by the time the next ‘X Men’ movie comes out Disney could already own Fox and if they are going to release part one and Disney scraps the second part of ‘Dark Phoenix’ for a reboot then what is the point of even making a first part and perhaps they should put that on the backburner for now. I am confused over just how much of the rights for the ‘X Men’ and ‘The Fantastic Four’ Fox actually own ‘cause Marvel can make animated shows of them but could they make Live Action TV Shows? Some might disagree but I feel X Men would be better suited to being a Live Action TV show than a movie ‘cause there are so many X Men they just don’t have time to cover in movies they could cover in a TV show and villains and storylines.
A few years ago there was talk about ABC making an ‘X Men’ TV show which was going to have new actors playing the roles but not long after that ‘Legion’ was announced and nothing against that but a proper ‘X Men’ Live Action TV Show could have been heaps better and if DC can have two different versions of their characters in movies and TV shows why not an ‘X Men’ TV show? It would be bound to get ratings and if done right could give lots of other superhero shows a run for their money and as movies alone the whole property just feels wasted ‘cause there is so much more they could do with them. Thanks for letting me know about Adam Warlock and it sounds like you are onto something with Namor.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Aug 30, 2018 12:34:06 GMT
|
|