x-force (original lineup)??

NewMcG

FokaiHI said:

Isn't the Inhuman storyline a partial result of the bad licensing agreements that have plagued Marvel? genuine question. 

The Inhuman push is kind of Marvel's response to not having movie/TV rights to anything branded as "mutant". The Inhumans have been around a long time, and just never got quite the push. And as far as "bad licensing agreements" go, the Sony and Fox deals basically kept Marvel afloat long enough to ever make a movie of their own. So they may look "bad" now, but without them, there's a good chance there's no Marvel to speak of anymore.

Dragon_Nexus

New McG said:

FokaiHI said:

Isn't the Inhuman storyline a partial result of the bad licensing agreements that have plagued Marvel? genuine question. 

The Inhuman push is kind of Marvel's response to not having movie/TV rights to anything branded as "mutant". The Inhumans have been around a long time, and just never got quite the push. And as far as "bad licensing agreements" go, the Sony and Fox deals basically kept Marvel afloat long enough to ever make a movie of their own. So they may look "bad" now, but without them, there's a good chance there's no Marvel to speak of anymore.

Yeah, while it kinda sucks *now* because Marvel lost out on a bunch of movie characters, without making the deal they would likely have gone belly up.

Honestly, the loss of X-men in the MCU doesn't bother me. The MCU ticks along nicely with a handful of super heroes to focus on. If you then say "Oh btw, there are literally millions of super powered beings called Mutants now" that really messes things up.

I know they've *kiiiiinda* done that with Inhumans (I wonder how closely to Agents of Shield the TV series will be) but it's not as drastic. People still need to be awoken with terrigen mist (hated the AoS plot element about it poisoning non Inhumans, but I guess they can't do it to mutants, soooo...)

Still, I'm curious how long Universal's rights over Hulk will last. I know we won't get a Hulk movie with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce, but I'm curious how long the deal's on for. Whether it's "Until we've made three" or "Until ten years have passed since the last one we made" which would be next year.

NewMcG

Dragon_Nexus said:

New McG said:

FokaiHI said:

Isn't the Inhuman storyline a partial result of the bad licensing agreements that have plagued Marvel? genuine question. 

The Inhuman push is kind of Marvel's response to not having movie/TV rights to anything branded as "mutant". The Inhumans have been around a long time, and just never got quite the push. And as far as "bad licensing agreements" go, the Sony and Fox deals basically kept Marvel afloat long enough to ever make a movie of their own. So they may look "bad" now, but without them, there's a good chance there's no Marvel to speak of anymore.

Yeah, while it kinda sucks *now* because Marvel lost out on a bunch of movie characters, without making the deal they would likely have gone belly up.

Honestly, the loss of X-men in the MCU doesn't bother me. The MCU ticks along nicely with a handful of super heroes to focus on. If you then say "Oh btw, there are literally millions of super powered beings called Mutants now" that really messes things up.

I know they've *kiiiiinda* done that with Inhumans (I wonder how closely to Agents of Shield the TV series will be) but it's not as drastic. People still need to be awoken with terrigen mist (hated the AoS plot element about it poisoning non Inhumans, but I guess they can't do it to mutants, soooo...)

Still, I'm curious how long Universal's rights over Hulk will last. I know we won't get a Hulk movie with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce, but I'm curious how long the deal's on for. Whether it's "Until we've made three" or "Until ten years have passed since the last one we made" which would be next year.

Yeah, I'm fine with X-Men being its own thing. I mean, Fox allowed Deadpool the leeway to be Deadpool, and its success got us Logan, both of which never happen that way under the Disney umbrella. It would be fun to have some X-folks in the MCU, but it just adds more people to an already bustling lineup of people to work into movies. 

And I really don't think the Hulk ever gets a solo jam again. He's great as the Chekov's gun as a guest in the Avengers movies (team and individual) but I just think the concept of the character is tough to pull off as the main focus. His most interesting beats are as a raging, out of control monster, and the rest of the time his existence is meant to be that of a super genius nerd, which isn't the most compelling thing to translate to the big screen. It's a great character, but just difficult to make work as the primary centerpiece of a whole film.

Chrono_Tata

New McG said:

Dragon_Nexus said:

New McG said:

FokaiHI said:

Isn't the Inhuman storyline a partial result of the bad licensing agreements that have plagued Marvel? genuine question. 

The Inhuman push is kind of Marvel's response to not having movie/TV rights to anything branded as "mutant". The Inhumans have been around a long time, and just never got quite the push. And as far as "bad licensing agreements" go, the Sony and Fox deals basically kept Marvel afloat long enough to ever make a movie of their own. So they may look "bad" now, but without them, there's a good chance there's no Marvel to speak of anymore.

Yeah, while it kinda sucks *now* because Marvel lost out on a bunch of movie characters, without making the deal they would likely have gone belly up.

Honestly, the loss of X-men in the MCU doesn't bother me. The MCU ticks along nicely with a handful of super heroes to focus on. If you then say "Oh btw, there are literally millions of super powered beings called Mutants now" that really messes things up.

I know they've *kiiiiinda* done that with Inhumans (I wonder how closely to Agents of Shield the TV series will be) but it's not as drastic. People still need to be awoken with terrigen mist (hated the AoS plot element about it poisoning non Inhumans, but I guess they can't do it to mutants, soooo...)

Still, I'm curious how long Universal's rights over Hulk will last. I know we won't get a Hulk movie with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce, but I'm curious how long the deal's on for. Whether it's "Until we've made three" or "Until ten years have passed since the last one we made" which would be next year.

Yeah, I'm fine with X-Men being its own thing. I mean, Fox allowed Deadpool the leeway to be Deadpool, and its success got us Logan, both of which never happen that way under the Disney umbrella. It would be fun to have some X-folks in the MCU, but it just adds more people to an already bustling lineup of people to work into movies. 

And I really don't think the Hulk ever gets a solo jam again. He's great as the Chekov's gun as a guest in the Avengers movies (team and individual) but I just think the concept of the character is tough to pull off as the main focus. His most interesting beats are as a raging, out of control monster, and the rest of the time his existence is meant to be that of a super genius nerd, which isn't the most compelling thing to translate to the big screen. It's a great character, but just difficult to make work as the primary centerpiece of a whole film.

I think the problem with Hulk is that he is so powerful that practically no Earth-based antagonist are of any real threat to him (at least in a physical fight). I think they are probably making a smart move with Thor: Ragnarok to move him offworld to fight space-level threats. I think Hulk solo movies which are grounded on Earth are possible but I don't think they would be the kind of big blockbuster movies that Marvel Studio would envision fitting into their main narrative. Probably looking at something more in tune with the grittier Netflix series.

DAZ0273

Dormammu said:

GrimSkald said:

Actually, Dazzler was intended to be a pretty serious character - I remember reading those classic X-Men when she appeared - she was one of two mutants who were very powerful and Prof X and Emma Frost (who was also a new character at the time,) were racing to recruit them both!

Absolutely. Dazzler was also a major part of the X-Men in the Siege Perilous era (I always remember it as the Marc Silvestri era) and I greatly enjoyed her presence in the book. Though he didn't create her, Claremont had a soft spot for Dazzler and it really came out in his writing.

But Dazzler was absolutely a serious character. Her 42 issue solo series was no joke, and Dazzler: the Movie was an incredible graphic novel where Allison dealt with her quest for fame and being outed as a mutant, which subjected her to 'mutie' racism - a dark thing that was portrayed very realistically in Marvel books in those days.

Dazzler was also going to be the 5th member of X-Factor but they then resurrected Jean Grey instead. Beast even pretty much invites her in the last issue of her solo series.

Dormammu

Dragon_Nexus said:

Still, I'm curious how long Universal's rights over Hulk will last. I know we won't get a Hulk movie with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce, but I'm curious how long the deal's on for. Whether it's "Until we've made three" or "Until ten years have passed since the last one we made" which would be next year.

I didn't even realize Universal had any rights to the Hulk. Interesting. Is it just distribution rights for solo movies? Is that why Marvel can use him in Avengers/Thor?

DarthDeVo

Dormammu said:

Dragon_Nexus said:

Still, I'm curious how long Universal's rights over Hulk will last. I know we won't get a Hulk movie with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce, but I'm curious how long the deal's on for. Whether it's "Until we've made three" or "Until ten years have passed since the last one we made" which would be next year.

I didn't even realize Universal had any rights to the Hulk. Interesting. Is it just distribution rights for solo movies? Is that why Marvel can use him in Avengers/Thor?

 As far as I understand it, that's pretty much it. If it's a solo Hulk movie, then it's a Universal jam and they get pretty much all the money it makes (of course, they're on the hook for production costs as well). But so long as Hulk is showing up alongside other Marvel heroes, Marvel can use him. 

Even though I know Ruffalo's Banner is supposed to be the same Banner as Norton's, I just figured they'd kind of sweep the events of that movie under the rug.  In the first Avengers, they made one kind of off-handed reference to Banner destroying Harlem the last time he was there, but that was pretty much it ... until Thunderbolt Ross showed up in Civil War.

I thought it was interesting they brought him in, when that role could have been filled by any generic government bureaucrat, and felt it was a nice nod to an often forgotten MCU movie. But, it did get me thinking about the fact that Betty Ross is still out there somewhere, along with Doc Samson, Abomination (presumably confined somewhere, but still alive) and Samuel "The Leader" Sterns. At the time I thought it seemed they were pretty obviously setting that up for a sequel, but almost 10 years later and we've got nada, and no plans for the foreseeable future.

And as far as X-Men/Fantastic Four go, it probably wouldn't work in the already fairly crowded MCU. What makes me sad about that whole situation is the apparent self-imposed ban Marvel has put on themselves, although even that seems wildly inconsistent at times.

At any rate, I saw a poster this weekend. It was one of those large group shots of a number of Marvel heroes and villains, easily at least 100 different characters, maybe pushing 200. And not a single X-Men or Fantastic Four hero or villain from what I could tell. There was one character who maybe could have been Emma Frost, which is what made me notice and try and find other X-characters, but no luck. Its instances like that, where they pretend like they don't even exist and never have, that bother me.

And yes, I'm one of the ones that would love to see Nightcrawler, among other mutants, in this game, so consider that bias if you want. I just see it as cutting off your nose to spite your face, and would think Marvel would be more interested in making money than in whatever potential positive promotion the characters might get that may translate into Fox getting more money through X-Men movies. 

NewMcG

DarthDeVo said:

Dormammu said:

Dragon_Nexus said:

Still, I'm curious how long Universal's rights over Hulk will last. I know we won't get a Hulk movie with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce, but I'm curious how long the deal's on for. Whether it's "Until we've made three" or "Until ten years have passed since the last one we made" which would be next year.

I didn't even realize Universal had any rights to the Hulk. Interesting. Is it just distribution rights for solo movies? Is that why Marvel can use him in Avengers/Thor?

 As far as I understand it, that's pretty much it. If it's a solo Hulk movie, then it's a Universal jam and they get pretty much all the money it makes (of course, they're on the hook for production costs as well). But so long as Hulk is showing up alongside other Marvel heroes, Marvel can use him. 

Even though I know Ruffalo's Banner is supposed to be the same Banner as Norton's, I just figured they'd kind of sweep the events of that movie under the rug.  In the first Avengers, they made one kind of off-handed reference to Banner destroying Harlem the last time he was there, but that was pretty much it ... until Thunderbolt Ross showed up in Civil War.

I thought it was interesting they brought him in, when that role could have been filled by any generic government bureaucrat, and felt it was a nice nod to an often forgotten MCU movie. But, it did get me thinking about the fact that Betty Ross is still out there somewhere, along with Doc Samson, Abomination (presumably confined somewhere, but still alive) and Samuel "The Leader" Sterns. At the time I thought it seemed they were pretty obviously setting that up for a sequel, but almost 10 years later and we've got nada, and no plans for the foreseeable future.

And as far as X-Men/Fantastic Four go, it probably wouldn't work in the already fairly crowded MCU. What makes me sad about that whole situation is the apparent self-imposed ban Marvel has put on themselves, although even that seems wildly inconsistent at times.

At any rate, I saw a poster this weekend. It was one of those large group shots of a number of Marvel heroes and villains, easily at least 100 different characters, maybe pushing 200. And not a single X-Men or Fantastic Four hero or villain from what I could tell. There was one character who maybe could have been Emma Frost, which is what made me notice and try and find other X-characters, but no luck. Its instances like that, where they pretend like they don't even exist and never have, that bother me.

And yes, I'm one of the ones that would love to see Nightcrawler, among other mutants, in this game, so consider that bias if you want. I just see it as cutting off your nose to spite your face, and would think Marvel would be more interested in making money than in whatever potential positive promotion the characters might get that may translate into Fox getting more money through X-Men movies. 

Yeah, they've even gone and photoshopped FF and X-Men out of classic covers for marketing purposes. (I think they had a shirt with an old school Secret Wars cover that had characters like Mr F and the Thing taken out of it.) It's such a petty thing, given the long history those franchises have, and the fact that they're throwing away money they can make just to try and devalue the properties for movie purposes any way they can.

Found the story about that SW shirt: http://screenertv.com/news-features/marvel-takes-x-men-fantastic-four-off-merchandise-not-in-mcu-t-shirts/

DarthDeVo

It's all quite baffling, to me anyway at least. Because you can read announcements of Psylocke or Cable being added to the cast of one game or another. Then other games, like the new Marvel vs. Capcom game, are missing longtime franchise-featured characters like Wolverine. 

Dormammu

Well, after the last Fantastic Four movie totally bombed maybe Fox is finally willing to let those rights revert. I for one would like to see the first family in the hands of Marvel studios. Reed Richards big-braining the tinykitty out of Tony Stark would be worth the price of admission alone. Teaming the Human Torch with Spidey would be another dream come true.

DarthDeVo

Dormammu said:

Well, after the last Fantastic Four movie totally bombed maybe Fox is finally willing to let those rights revert. I for one would like to see the first family in the hands of Marvel studios. Reed Richards big-braining the tinykitty out of Tony Stark would be worth the price of admission alone. Teaming the Human Torch with Spidey would be another dream come true.

I know you're referring to the latest FF movie, but if the rights for those characters somehow reverted to Marvel in time that Chris Evans is still playing Cap, there needs to be a scene where he meets Johnny for the first time and kind of acts like he recognizes him and says something like, "You seem awfully familiar. Have we met before?"