Fant4stic: Reborn! - - - - - - - - - - Part 29

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]498379[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]497657[/split]

 

[C. Lee]

Why do you keep saying Universal owns Hulk? And Disney made no deal with Universal. Not to mention they don't have to make Hulk solo films to use the character. Spiderman has been a far more lucrative property for Sony and Marvel. Marvel's most popular character and Sony has nothing else in their stable.

Rights issues can get complicated (look at Quicksilver in XMOFP and AoU)....but basically, UNIVERSAL has the rights to movies STARRING the Hulk, while Marvel/Disney has the rights to use character in a supporting role.

 

[Spiderine]

Rights issues can get complicated (look at Quicksilver in XMOFP and AoU)....but basically, UNIVERSAL has the rights to movies STARRING the Hulk, while Marvel/Disney has the rights to use character in a supporting role.

I know this. But Marvel are not bound by any contract to make a Hulk film for Universal and have the right to use the Hulk in any other film they make. They still have 100 percent control of Hulk. Universal can't make Hulk films or spinoffs at all.

Dasher is proposing the Sony deal with Fox. Marvel would be obligated to produce FF solo films for character sharing rights which Fox would still own.

 

[Flint Marko]

By the way the stuff with Trank in the media. When the rumors started spilling out about the drug use on set, and such, I said that this was serious stuff because the leaked reports people were using their real names, that were confirmed to work for the studio. Now all of this stuff is proven true.

The fact that one of these insiders compared Trank to a talented young athlete who doesn't have the social skills to handle the fame, ought to tell you all you need to know.

Sad thing is this film might actually still be profitable. Just use Paul Blart 2 as an example, that film as bad as it might be, is a financial success.

What's said is that we have several posters here who have said on more than one occasion that even if this next movie ends up being horrible, they hope it gets a sequel so they can try again. Because how'd that work out for Paul Blart?

 

[wobbly]

I know this. But Marvel are not bound by any contract to make a Hulk film for Universal and have the right to use the Hulk in any other film they make. They still have 100 percent control of Hulk. Universal can't make Hulk films or spinoffs at all.

Dasher is proposing the Sony deal with Fox. Marvel would be obligated to produce FF solo films for character sharing rights which Fox would still own.

As I understand it the deal Marvel Studios made with Universal (pre Disney, which is important) got them the Hulk rights back early, with the trade off being Universal kept distribution rights for Hulk solo films. Marvel studios financed TIH themselves, taking all the risk (not a co production with Universal) through the Meryll Lynch loan deal.

As MS had no distribution arm of their own at that time they had to do so through others anyway. Paramount was the chosen partner for this (TIH was the only exception).

Disney then buys Marvel 'lock stock & barrel', and brings their own distribution wing to the table in Buena Vista. The distribution deal with paramount is still in effect for a while yet though, expiring on the release of Captain America: The First Avenger.

'The Avengers' was the first MCU flick produced and released solely by Disney and it's subsidiaries. All since have been the same.

Now whether Universals Hulk distribution rights are for a set number of films, or it is time sensitive deal like the others (around 8 years or so) is anyone's guess, but that I beleive is the main reason there has been no further Hulk solo film, despite his crowd pleasing turn in Avengers: Disney don't want their efforts to make another studio a lot of money.

Hopefully the deal is time sensitive, and if so the door for a Hulk flick post Infinity War should then be open. If not then I guess he will remain as a supporting player until Disney either pay off Universal or (However grudgingly) let Universal distribute it.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Rights issues can get complicated (look at Quicksilver in XMOFP and AoU)....but basically, UNIVERSAL has the rights to movies STARRING the Hulk, while Marvel/Disney has the rights to use character in a supporting role.

From what I gathered, the Hulk situation is far more complicated. The Hulk seems to be in an Indiana Jones type situation before Disney made a deal with Paramount to put the issue to rest. Disney has creative control over the character, hence why Universal can't just make a film starring the Hulk. But they have distribution rights to the character hence why Disney isn't making a Hulk film.

The part I find most baffling is that considering that Disney made a deal with Paramount regarding Indiana Jones over the exact same issues, why doesn't Disney just do the same thing with the Hulk.

 

[Tony Stark]

From what I gathered, the Hulk situation is far more complicated. The Hulk seems to be in an Indiana Jones type situation before Disney made a deal with Paramount to put the issue to rest. Disney has creative control over the character, hence why Universal can't just make a film starring the Hulk. But they have distribution rights to the character hence why Disney isn't making a Hulk film.

The part I find most baffling is that considering that Disney made a deal with Paramount regarding Indiana Jones over the exact same issues, why doesn't Disney just do the same thing with the Hulk.

I think the main issue is that Marvel has enough on their plate now, that there's no need to address the issue. They have exclusive rights to the Hulk as long as he appears in an Avengers or group franchise film, so there's no rush to resolve the issue. The next time Hulk would get another solo movie would be phase 4, which won't be announced until around 2019.

Indy on the other hand is being fast tracked with Spielberg wanting to do a a film with Chris Pratt as Indy, that could start production shortly. So there was way more urgency on the Indy property.

 

[Tony Stark]

What's said is that we have several posters here who have said on more than one occasion that even if this next movie ends up being horrible, they hope it gets a sequel so they can try again. Because how'd that work out for Paul Blart?

yeah there's definitely alot of Fox fans that are just making arguments based on "we hate Marvel studios" and not based on anything that's good for the FF.

Fox has made some good films with the X-men (and some terrible ones too), but for a studio that has made 10 films (11 with this one coming out) based on Marvel properties and only 5 of them have been rated positive, with 2 FF movies a Daredevil, Wolverine and Elektra movie that are considered among the worst in the genre, defending Fox's ability to make great superhero films is based more in fanfare than fact.

 

[Flint Marko]

yeah there's definitely alot of Fox fans that are just making arguments based on "we hate Marvel studios" and not based on anything that's good for the FF.

Fox has made some good films with the X-men (and some terrible ones too), but for a studio that has made 10 films (11 with this one coming out) based on Marvel properties and only 5 of them have been rated positive, with 2 FF movies a Daredevil, Wolverine and Elektra movie that are considered among the worst in the genre, defending Fox's ability to make great superhero films is based more in fanfare than fact.

Actually they are at 11 movies (X-men 1-3, XMO: W, XFC, The Wolverine, DOFP, FF 1-2, Daredevil and Elektra) with six of them (X3, X-men Origins Wolverine, FF1-2, Daredevil and Elektra) being some of the worst in the entire genre, with a 12th movie on the way. But yes, you're exactly right. Fox's ability to make great superhero films has always been questionable at the least, but this newest FF debacle could potentially undo some of that goodwill Singer and co. have garnered with DOFP.

 

[Spiderine]

As I understand it the deal Marvel Studios made with Universal (pre Disney, which is important) got them the Hulk rights back early, with the trade off being Universal kept distribution rights for Hulk solo films. Marvel studios financed TIH themselves, taking all the risk (not a co production with Universal) through the Meryll Lynch loan deal.

As MS had no distribution arm of their own at that time they had to do so through others anyway. Paramount was the chosen partner for this (TIH was the only exception).

Disney then buys Marvel 'lock stock & barrel', and brings their own distribution wing to the table in Buena Vista. The distribution deal with paramount is still in effect for a while yet though, expiring on the release of Captain America: The First Avenger.

'The Avengers' was the first MCU flick produced and released solely by Disney and it's subsidiaries. All since have been the same.

Now whether Universals Hulk distribution rights are for a set number of films, or it is time sensitive deal like the others (around 8 years or so) is anyone's guess, but that I beleive is the main reason there has been no further Hulk solo film, despite his crowd pleasing turn in Avengers: Disney don't want their efforts to make another studio a lot of money.

Hopefully the deal is time sensitive, and if so the door for a Hulk flick post Infinity War should then be open. If not then I guess he will remain as a supporting player until Disney either pay off Universal or (However grudgingly) let Universal distribute it.

Dasher keeps bringing up the Hulk deal as if Universal flat out owns the character rights. Everything you said is correct. But this really has nothing to do with Hulk.

He wants the Sony deal applied to the FF and Fox. FOX retains the rights while Marvel produces the films for FOX giving them access to include the FF in the MCU. Sony gets that deal because.............SPIDERMAN!

 

[spideyboy_1111]

for arguments sake... DD is usually not lumped in there with "one of the worst of the genere" it's like a C average rating ... some love it, some hate it.. it's just mediocre.. and people actually praised the directors cut

 

[Sithborg]

Actually they are at 11 movies (X-men 1-3, XMO: W, XFC, The Wolverine, DOFP, FF 1-2, Daredevil and Elektra) with six of them (X3, X-men Origins Wolverine, FF1-2, Daredevil and Elektra) being some of the worst in the entire genre, with a 12th movie on the way. But yes, you're exactly right. Fox's ability to make great superhero films has always been questionable at the least, but this newest FF debacle could potentially undo some of that goodwill Singer and co. have garnered with DOFP.

See, I'm not entirely sure why people see X3 and Daredevil as being worse than Iron Man 2 or Thor Dark World.

And I don't hate the MCU. I'm just bored with it. I think Dark World is the only movie I truly hate.

 

[Flint Marko]

See, I'm not entirely sure why people see X3 and Daredevil as being worse than Iron Man 2 or Thor Dark World.

And I don't hate the MCU. I'm just bored with it. I think Dark World is the only movie I truly hate.

X3 and Daredevil have next to zero redeeming qualities. X-men origins Wolverine might be one of the worst movies I've ever seen period.
I've frequently called Iron Man 2 and TDW the two worst films Marvel has ever made, but there's a lot to like in there. The critical reception being lukewarm to positive shows me I'm far from the only one thinking that. I think the cast being as likable as they are helps out a lot.

for arguments sake... DD is usually not lumped in there with "one of the worst of the genere" it's like a C average rating ... some love it, some hate it.. it's just mediocre.. and people actually praised the directors cut

I recently re-watched the directors cut around the same time I finished the netflix Daredevil series. That nu-metal and awful CG, along with Affleck's wooden performance and paper thin story, really really bring it down past mediocre. IMO of course.

 

[Spiderine]

I wouldn't call DD one of the absolute worst either. Its pretty average. When you got Catwoman, Elektra, Origins, Jonah Hex, and FF2. And I only address films post 2000. I didn't bring up 2003 Hulk because someone will come in and say it was awesome.

 

[Sithborg]

I think X3 suffers from expectations. After X2, the averageness of X3 is just enhanced.

Though, even Origins has stuff I loved (needs Mangold to bring back Schrieber).

 

[spideyboy_1111]

X3 and Daredevil have next to zero redeeming qualities. X-men origins Wolverine might be one of the worst movies I've ever seen period.
I've frequently called Iron Man 2 and TDW the two worst films Marvel has ever made, but there's a lot to like in there. The critical reception being lukewarm to positive shows me I'm far from the only one thinking that. I think the cast being as likable as they are helps out a lot.


I recently re-watched the directors cut around the same time I finished the netflix Daredevil series. That nu-metal and awful CG, along with Affleck's wooden performance and paper thin story, really really bring it down past mediocre. IMO of course.

ehrm... watching something newer and better... doesn't suddenly change peoples reactions of the past... the DC was praised. The new show may be better.. but it doesn't change the fact the DC was praised in the past.

 

[Flint Marko]

ehrm... watching something newer and better... doesn't suddenly change peoples reactions of the past... the DC was praised. The new show may be better.. but it doesn't change the fact the DC was praised in the past.

Note that I said "IMO", meaning that I personally still view it as one of the worst superhero movies in recent memory. I have only been speaking for myself, so whether or not it received praise doesn't matter to me. And not to belabor the point any further, but I'm not sure when the last time any of you watched it, but go back and revisit it. It aged so quickly and so poorly.

 

[psylockolussus]

See, I'm not entirely sure why people see X3 and Daredevil as being worse than Iron Man 2 or Thor Dark World.

And I don't hate the MCU. I'm just bored with it. I think Dark World is the only movie I truly hate.

I refer X3 over Iron Man 2 and Thor Dark World.

And I don't know for some reason, people who aren't praising every work of MCU, gets labeled a Fox fan that hates Marvel Studios. Umm okay. Check the TV shows I watch and you'll see I only watch 1 show on FOX and the rest are from ABC which is owned by Disney.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I never really thought much about it, but if I made a list of my top superhero films of all time, I think it would look something like:

1. Avengers
2. Avengers 2
3. Batman Begins
4. Iron Man
5. Captain America Winter Soldier
6. Dark Knight
7. Thor
8. Guardians of the Galaxy
9. Spider-Man 2
10. The Incredible Hulk
11. The Amazing Spider-man
12. Man of Steel
13. Captain America
14. Superman 2 (Christopher Reeve)
15. Batman (Burton)
16. X-Men

The best Fox film doesn't even crack the top fifteen, and all other Fox films are well below that. They really have made a lot of mediocre films that are okay on their own, but nothing special in the grand scheme, haven't they?

 

[Paradox1]

I never really thought much about it, but if I made a list of my top superhero films of all time, I think it would look something like:

1. Avengers
2. Avengers 2
3. Batman Begins
4. Iron Man
5. Captain America Winter Soldier
6. Dark Knight
7. Thor
8. Guardians of the Galaxy
9. Spider-Man 2
10. The Incredible Hulk
11. The Amazing Spider-man
12. Man of Steel
13. Captain America
14. Superman 2 (Christopher Reeve)
15. Batman (Burton)
16. X-Men

The best Fox film doesn't even crack the top fifteen, and all other Fox films are well below that. They really have made a lot of mediocre films that are okay on their own, but nothing special in the grand scheme, haven't they?

No DOFP which has like 90something critical and fan rating? or X FC, really??

 

[C. Lee]

I never really thought much about it, but if I made a list of my top superhero films of all time, I think it would look something like:

14. Superman 2 (Christopher Reeve)

Theatrical or the Donner Cut? I personally like the Donner Cut more.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Theatrical or the Donner Cut? I personally like the Donner Cut more.

I guess I would base it on the Theatrical cut because that's what I know best. I'm not sure if I have the Donner Cut. I have a DVD that I bought probably more than 10 years ago and I recently upgraded to the HDX version on Vudu, but I never owned the blu-ray. Would my DVD have the Donner cut? I may have to check it out.

 

[Flint Marko]

I refer X3 over Iron Man 2 and Thor Dark World.

And I don't know for some reason, people who aren't praising every work of MCU, gets labeled a Fox fan that hates Marvel Studios. Umm okay. Check the TV shows I watch and you'll see I only watch 1 show on FOX and the rest are from ABC which is owned by Disney.

You have a twitter account, linked on your SHH account, whose description is "The FF are here to stay! Eat your heart out Marvel Studios!" so it makes sense why some people would get that impression.

I never really thought much about it, but if I made a list of my top superhero films of all time, I think it would look something like:

1. Avengers
2. Avengers 2
3. Batman Begins
4. Iron Man
5. Captain America Winter Soldier
6. Dark Knight
7. Thor
8. Guardians of the Galaxy
9. Spider-Man 2
10. The Incredible Hulk
11. The Amazing Spider-man
12. Man of Steel
13. Captain America
14. Superman 2 (Christopher Reeve)
15. Batman (Burton)
16. X-Men

The best Fox film doesn't even crack the top fifteen, and all other Fox films are well below that. They really have made a lot of mediocre films that are okay on their own, but nothing special in the grand scheme, haven't they?

Agreed. My list does not look all that dissimilar, save for switching around TDK with Batman Begins and a few other things here and there.

 

[Sithborg]

No DOFP which has like 90something critical and fan rating? or X FC, really??

Everyone has different preferences. My top Godzilla movies seems to be diametrically opposed to the majority of Godzilla fans.