Madame Hydra in the MCU...

[kaijunexus]

So, Viper (Madame Hydra) is now officially a part of Fox's X-Men universe...



But how is this possible since her character is pretty well attached to the Hydra organization, which is a part of the MCU?

Well, the answer may lie in some things Kevin Feige said about the use of the Skrulls and Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver by Marvel Studios...

Are the rights to the Skrulls with another studio?

Feige: Yes, Skrulls have a big connection to Fantastic Four. So there are some contractual limitations about who can do what when it comes to Skrulls. Though that is not why we didn’t do Skrulls. There is already enough going on in this movie.

In a separate interview at the premiere with Hey U Guys, he was asked about the rights status of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, Marvel mutants who served as early members of the Avengers, and revealed that, “It’s a little complicated, but if they [Fox, which holds the X-Men rights] want to use them in the X-Men movie they could, [but] if we want to use them in The Avengers movie, we could.

This implies that there may be gray areas in terms of who can use what characters, and even means that some characters can be used by both Marvel Studios and other studios simultaneously.

Does this mean we could see two separate versions of Viper on the big screen, one in Fox's X-Men universe and one in the MCU (even in Captain America: The Winder Soldier)? Perhaps...

[BullMcGiveny]

I think if Marvel was so inclined, they could use Madame Hydra in their movies, so long as she is identified as someone OTHER than Ophelia Sarkisiaan AKA Viper (as I've seen the above character referred to in relations to the Wolverine). They could even give her green/dark hair.

As an aside, the above picture comes across looking a lot like Amora the Enchantress.

[Mr. Dent]

Yeah Viper has to be split between the two studios. Fox definitely can't refer to her as Madam Hydra, while Marvel can most likely use a character named Madam Hydra.

[cherokeesam]

Whar's her green hair....?!?!

Glad to see Viper get at least some cinematic recognition, but it's a shame she won't be part of HYDRA or the Serpent Society. And even if Marvel Studios can still use her, I'm not sure they'd really want to now, unless she's absolutely crucial to any given script. (And I don't see how she would be --- there's a dozen snake-themed villainesses Marvel could use in her place.)

[ThePowerCosmic]

Yeah, I think Marvel can use the version Ophelia/Madame Hydra, while Fox can use the Viper alias.

Madame Hydra(MCU) will probably be dressed in green, and also have the black hair and green lipstick. Notice how Fox's Viper doesn't have those features, aside from just being dressed in green. Also, Viper won't be connected to HYDRA in The Wolverine, while Madame Hydra will almost definitely be connected to HYDRA.

[xeno000]

If Wolverine's legs aren't shackled in that scene he should just kick Viper in the balls. Problem solved.


If I were Feige, I would break my neck getting Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver into The Avengers before Fox has the chance to taint them. Viper/Madame Hydra can be redeemed if they choose to use her, but there are plenty of other snaky HYDRA villains slithering around who could be slotted into the series instead.

[Supermanreturns]

STOP!

If Marvel Studios wants to use Viper in Cap America ask Svetlana Khodchenkova to come back.

I don't want multiple versions of one character. They have to made some agreements and stop.

[ThePowerCosmic]

Originally Posted by Supermanreturns

STOP!

If Marvel Studios wants to use Viper in Cap America ask Svetlana Khodchenkova to come back.

I don't want multiple versions of one character. They have to made some agreements and stop.

It's simple, though. Viper and Madame Hydra won't be the same character in the movie universe(s).


Both of the characters will be made different enough so that there is no confusion.

[Supermanreturns]

Originally Posted by ThePowerCosmic

It's simple, though. Viper and Madame Hydra won't be the same character in the movie universe(s).


Both of the characters will be made different enough so that there is no confusion.

I'd like to see Svetlana as Madame Hydra. Marvel doesn't need to explain his background, her story with Wolverine. Call her "Madame Hydra", give her a different suit, maybe a different hair style (green?) and stop. It's simple. If they want they reference her as "Viper" in some lines, but call her Madame Hydra.

[Supermanreturns]

In a Cap's movie i think at lines like these: "Sorry, Viper..." "I don't like to be call Viper anymore.".

I don't know why Marvel Studios and Fox or Sony doesn't make some agreements. Marvel don't have to reference to Wolverine's movie but use the same actress!

[Mr. Dent]

Because of money. How would they split it? And why would Disney share proceeds with Fox/Sony to have their characters in their movies when they do just fine without them?

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

Because of money. How would they split it? And why would Disney share proceeds with Fox/Sony to have their characters in their movies when they do just fine without them?

Correction: any movie with Iron Man in it.
Otherwise, Marvel Studios' heroes have yet to show any competitive edge with X-Men and Spidey.

I don't think there's a big studio lovefest any time in the near future, either, but it's tiresome to keep hearing this "Marvel Studios is too good to slum with Fox and Sony" snobbery on these boards. Money is money, and Mickey Mouse likes it as much as anybody else.

[Chewy]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Correction: any movie with Iron Man in it.
Otherwise, Marvel Studios' heroes have yet to show any competitive edge with X-Men and Spidey.

Except for, y'know, that time a Thor movie, a Captain America movie and an X-Men movie were all released in the same summer. lol

X-Men didn't start off as the uber-popular film franchise it became by the time The Last Stand was released. It premiered, built its fanbase up, and became that uber-popular franchise. Just like Thor and Cap will.

Sorry for the off-topic interjection, just think it's a little silly when people try to act like Thor and Cap are nothing franchises beneath the lowly majors. They're about to see huge boosts for their sequels, and were already reasonably big for first-timers.

As for the topic of this thread, the answer is that Madame Hydra probably won't show up in any of these movies, so it's a non-issue.

[Mr. Dent]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Correction: any movie with Iron Man in it.
Otherwise, Marvel Studios' heroes have yet to show any competitive edge with X-Men and Spidey.

I don't think there's a big studio lovefest any time in the near future, either, but it's tiresome to keep hearing this "Marvel Studios is too good to slum with Fox and Sony" snobbery on these boards. Money is money, and Mickey Mouse likes it as much as anybody else.

Both Thor and Cap outgrossed First Class. And beyond that, the only place you'd have X-Men character and Spider-Man in the same movie as Cap and Thor is the Avengers anyway, rendering the Iron Man thing moot.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by Chewy

Except for, y'know, that time a Thor movie, a Captain America movie and an X-Men movie were all released in the same summer. lol

X-Men didn't start off as the uber-popular film franchise it became by the time The Last Stand was released. It premiered, built its fanbase up, and became that uber-popular franchise. Just like Thor and Cap will.

Sorry for the off-topic interjection, just think it's a little silly when people try to act like Thor and Cap are nothing franchises beneath the lowly majors. They're about to see huge boosts for their sequels, and were already reasonably big for first-timers.

As for the topic of this thread, the answer is that Madame Hydra probably won't show up in any of these movies, so it's a non-issue.

If you look purely at the films' grosses, none of the X-films has done as well as Iron Man, or much better than Thor. Cap was in a uniquely bad position for a number of reasons, release date being chief among them, and still out-classed First Class. As pointed out, Thor & Cap will only see their BO takes increase after their exposure in TA. And Iron Man may well rocket into the billion dollar club very soon.


The X-Men films did not expand in popularity as much as they should have by this point. They made decent money but by the third installment they should have been making several hundred million more than they did worldwide. With so many films serving as build up, just as the Marvel films built up towards TA, one would reasonably have expected the X-franchise to have breached the billion dollar barrier by now, like TA did. I would have at least expected the franchise to equal the first Spider-Man by now, given their buzz and supposed popularity. FC was a reboot and of course hampered by that, but its worldwide totals weren't stellar, especially when compared to Thor and Cap.

[Supermanreturns]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

Because of money. How would they split it? And why would Disney share proceeds with Fox/Sony to have their characters in their movies when they do just fine without them?

They will earn both from a sort-of-a-agreement like this.

Feige has said that they have the rights for Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, and Fox too. Marvel can use Scarlet and Quicksilver but can't say that they're mutants while Fox can use them but without saying that they're Avengers.

So, this is ok, but I suppose they can use the same actors, if they want. They can't contraddict the movies, or referenced them. But they can use the same actors.

As for Viper/Madame Hydra, i say, don't reference the Wolverine's movie but use Svetlana.

[Mr. Dent]

Again, how does Disney "earn" anything from this? Without them they produced the third largest grossing film in history, what incentive would they have to split the procedes? There's no proof that having Spider-Man or the X-Men in the Avengers would boost BO significantly, and even if it did, it might not be worth it because virtually everything you gained off of it would just go back to Fox/Sony anyway. It just doesn't make business sense.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

Again, how does Disney "earn" anything from this? Without them they produced the third largest grossing film in history, what incentive would they have to split the procedes? There's no proof that having Spider-Man or the X-Men in the Avengers would boost BO significantly, and even if it did, it might not be worth it because virtually everything you gained off of it would just go back to Fox/Sony anyway. It just doesn't make business sense.

Thor, Cap and Hulk, not to mention completely unproven franchises like GOTG and Ant-Man, could definitely profit from Spidey and Wolverine cameos. We can make excuses all we want for past performance and be as optimistic as possible for the future of these franchises --- and I have high hopes as much as anybody --- but the truth of the matter is that the only solid blockbusters Marvel Studios have produced have been with Iron Man, who might as well be their flagship character. Just as Spidey is Sony's, and Wolverine is Fox's. It's pretty naive to think that Marvel Studios wouldn't profit a penny from having them aboard, or getting a boost for underperforming franchises with a cameo or three from them.

[Mr. Dent]

Cap was only 5 million short of Wolverine, basically statistically tied, and Thor grossed way more than Wolverine did...hell Thor was only ten million shy of the highest grossing X-Men film. The only blockbuster Marvel HASN'T made was Hulk. Furthermore, how would Spidey and the X-Men help Ant-Man and GotG? None of the characters would show up in those films and I don't see what kind of cross promotion would lead people to go out to see GotG or Ant-Man anymore than they were planning to just because Marvel/Sony/Fox used some characters together in an Avengers film. And why would Marvel even want Spider-Man or Wolverine to cameo in Ant-Man or GotG? They're COMPLETELY unrelated, especially GotG. That just doesn't make sense.

It's very likely that Disney would have very little to gain from splitting profits with Fox and Sony on an Avengers film, because again, that would be the only place Spidey and X-Men characters would show up. Marvel would not have Spidey or Wolverine cameo in random character films to promote them...if they thought something like that was necessary then they would have Iron Man in every film they're producing right now. Avengers already grossed $1.5b, you're not going to go much higher than that on top of paying hundreds of millions to Sony and Fox to use their characters. Again, it doesn't make business sense.

[Supermanreturns]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

Cap was only 5 million short of Wolverine, basically statistically tied, and Thor grossed way more than Wolverine did...hell Thor was only ten million shy of the highest grossing X-Men film. The only blockbuster Marvel HASN'T made was Hulk. Furthermore, how would Spidey and the X-Men help Ant-Man and GotG? None of the characters would show up in those films and I don't see what kind of cross promotion would lead people to go out to see GotG or Ant-Man anymore than they were planning to just because Marvel/Sony/Fox used some characters together in an Avengers film. And why would Marvel even want Spider-Man or Wolverine to cameo in Ant-Man or GotG? They're COMPLETELY unrelated, especially GotG. That just doesn't make sense.

It's very likely that Disney would have very little to gain from splitting profits with Fox and Sony on an Avengers film, because again, that would be the only place Spidey and X-Men characters would show up. Marvel would not have Spidey or Wolverine cameo in random character films to promote them...if they thought something like that was necessary then they would have Iron Man in every film they're producing right now. Avengers already grossed $1.5b, you're not going to go much higher than that on top of paying hundreds of millions to Sony and Fox to use their characters. Again, it doesn't make business sense.

Who have talked about Spider-Man and Wolverine?

I have talked about Scarlet Witch or Quicksilver or now Viper. The rights of these characters belongs to both Marvel Studios and Fox. So why don't they use the same actors/actresess for these characters without referenced to the other movies?

It's not Wolverine, X-Men or Spider-Man, it's talking about these characters.

[Mr. Dent]

I was not talking to you.

[Silvermoth]

I would love to see Svetlana as Madame Hydra in the Marvel U. I reckon she's going to kill it and it'll be difficult to see anyone else in the role after her.

[chamber-music]

After the Mutant X lawsuit between Marvel and Fox I don't think either of them are in a rush to use characters the other will be using.

Unless they both come to a deal on characters then you just know each company will be watching the other closely with their lawyers ready to serve papers if they see a breach of contract rights they did years ago.

[Uncanny1]

Originally Posted by xeno000

If I were Feige, I would break my neck getting Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver into The Avengers before Fox has the chance to taint them. .

Me too. I hope the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are in a Marvel movie before a Fox one. It is low for Fox to use Madame Hydra when Wolverine have so many bad guys to pick from.

[ThePowerCosmic]

Originally Posted by Uncanny1

Me too. I hope the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are in a Marvel movie before a Fox one. It is low for Fox to use Madame Hydra when Wolverine have so many bad guys to pick from.

Seeing as how Viper and Wolverine are naturally supposed to be connected as well, it's not like Fox was out of line for including her in his movie.

Plus, Marvel can still use the name Madame Hydra and have her more in line with her comic book counterpart, whereas Viper has been changed to a more snakelike woman who sheds her skin, uses toxins, is possibly a mutant and doesn't seem to be connected to HYDRA at all.