Guardians of the Galaxy Guardians of the Galaxy: General Discussion & Speculation Thread - Part 2

[Mr. Dent]

And nobody's commenting on my Groot theory? Okay. Matter of perception of the painting, but it looks to me like the focus of those starbursts is Groot.

No, I can buy the theory, it sounds cool. They do look like they're made of the same colors as Groot and would be awesome on screen.

Also, you guys should read this editorial that was written when the movie was first announced.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/lets-take-a-closer-look-at-marvels-new-guardians-of-the-galaxy/

I read it awhile ago but I completely forgot about it, some interesting tidbits in it. He calls the guns Star-Lord is holding in the concept art Kree machine guns though I'm not sure what he's basing that off of...would be awesome if they were though.

Also, if my Andromeda Galaxy theory is true then that would open the door for the Skrulls to be introduced in the film.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Those starburts look like large objects flying close to the clouds. They are not in the fore or middle ground of the painting they are far off in the distance.

And I'm not sure why solid, angular objects would have an immediate correlation to a rough, organic creature.

Just my opinion


EDIT: Skrulls are at Fox. Marvel can't use them.

 

[Mr. Dent]

EDIT: Skrulls are at Fox. Marvel can't use them.

We actually discussed this a couple pages back. Feige has said that Marvel owns the Skrulls, but Fox owns the Super-Skrull, and certain elements of the Skrulls cannot be used by them (basically anything related to the FF...which is pretty much just the Super-Skrull).

 

[Poni_Boy]

We actually discussed this a couple pages back. Feige has said that Marvel owns the Skrulls, but Fox owns the Super-Skrull, and certain elements of the Skrulls cannot be used by them (basically anything related to the FF...which is pretty much just the Super-Skrull).

Wrong. You're going off of old information (at least four years old). He changed his stance last year:

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.

http://www.chud.com/92209/interview-kevin-feige-the-avengers/

 

[Mr. Dent]

Yes, that was posted a couple pages. We took that to mean Marvel could not use anything related to the Super-Skrull or that the Skrulls are in an area similar to Scarlet Witch/Quicksilver, which is why I said "anything relate to the FF". The way he phrased that obviously means there are limitations both ways but Marvel using them is not completely out of the question.

 

[Xeno]

I think those floating emblems look like Nova Corps insignia, though the shapes are not all uniform.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Yes, that was posted a couple pages. We took that to mean Marvel could not use anything related to the Super-Skrull or that the Skrulls are in an area similar to Scarlet Witch/Quicksilver, which is why I said "anything relate to the FF". The way he phrased that obviously means there are limitations both ways but Marvel using them is not completely out of the question.

Your interpretation is wrong.

He flat out says the Skrulls are at another studio (Fox, who owns the FF).

That's not up for debate, his words are very clear.

Now if you were to say, "What about the Kree?" Since he didn't mention them at all it's completely plausible that Marvel still owns them considering they are tied just as much to The Avengers as the FF.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Kree are more interesting anyway. Lots more potential.

 

[Mr. Dent]

I disagree about the wording.

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.

He doesn't flat out say they cannot use the Skrulls, he says there limitation as to who can do what with them...that implies limitations on both sides. Like I said, it's probably a situation similar to Wanda and Pietro where both studios can use the characters but Fox cannot refer to their Avengers connection and Marvel cannot refer to their mutant connection.

 

[Mr. Dent]

Kree are more interesting anyway. Lots more potential.

I don't disagree with this, I'm just going off of my theory that the film takes place in the Andromeda Galaxy, which is where the Skrull empire and Nova are based...after all Gunn said there would be a lot of surprises for fans, that would definitely be one.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I disagree about the wording.

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.

He doesn't flat out say they cannot use the Skrulls, he says there limitation as to who can do what with them...that implies limitations on both sides. Like I said, it's probably a situation similar to Wanda and Pietro where both studios can use the characters but Fox cannot refer to their Avengers connection and Marvel cannot refer to their mutant connection.

How is it not clear.

Q: Are the rights to the Skrulls with another studio?

A: YES

You're trying to justify your personal theory based on a sentence of information while simultaneously ignoring the first, and most important, part.

If he hadn't said "Yes" and just gone into that discussion then, yes, it would have been ambiguous. But it's not. He confirmed that the film rights to the Skrulls are at another studio.

You can't interpret "yes" to mean anything other than "yes"

 

[Xeno]

Your interpretation is wrong.

He flat out says the Skrulls are at another studio (Fox, who owns the FF).

That's not up for debate, his words are very clear.

Now if you were to say, "What about the Kree?" Since he didn't mention them at all it's completely plausible that Marvel still owns them considering they are tied just as much to The Avengers as the FF.

I have read and seen interviews in which Feige says that Marvel owns and can use the Skrulls, though Fox own Super-Skrull outright due to his ties to the Fantastic Four. They had considered the Skrulls as Loki's army, but Whedon and Feige knocked that down because shape-shifting aliens would have been too confusing.

Something they don’t have, though, is the complete rights to the Skrulls. That’s one of the main reasons the alien race didn’t appear in “The Avengers,” apparently.

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

http://www.ifc.com/fix/2012/05/kevin-feige-captain-america-2-the-skrulls-the-avengers

Hey You Guys interviewed Feige at The Avengers premiere and he spoke a bit more about the Skrulls (and the Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver) starting at the 2:05 mark.

[YT]O2nEz-AXmig[/YT]

 

[Mr. Dent]

How is it not clear.

Q: Are the rights to the Skrulls with another studio?

A: YES

You're trying to justify your personal theory based on a sentence of information while simultaneously ignoring the first, and most important, part.

If he hadn't said "Yes" and just gone into that discussion then, yes, it would have been ambiguous. But it's not. He confirmed that the film rights to the Skrulls are at another studio.

You can't interpret "yes" to mean anything other than "yes"

You're taking the yes too literally. You have to remember that he was speaking totally off the cuff. He had no planned responses or things like that, so a lot of one off words come from reflex and mannerism,. I don't think he meant to say "yes" as a definite statement that Fox completely owned the rights, he meant yes that the Skrulls were with another studio (besides Marvel) and certain elements of them could not be used. You have to take into context the situation in which he said the quote and the entire answer itself. He would not have said "who can do what with them" if Fox did not have limitations as well. Also take into account how the person asked the question; they did not ask "Does Fox own the Skrulls" they asked "Are the Skrulls with another studio". This carries a different connotation to it. And don't think Feige did not take that into account, these guys are trained to give as vague answers as possible depending on how specific the question is, and that was a pretty weak sauce question in terms of specifics.

I don't feel like getting into a big argument with you about this. I can see it from where you're coming from but I don't think you're taking into consideration the entire context of the quote and are simply going off of his "yes", which again I don't believe he meant to be interpreted in the manner you're suggesting.

If you can't see it my way then let's just agree to disagree here before we get into another tl;dr argument.

 

[Mr. Dent]

I disagree about the wording.



He doesn't flat out say they cannot use the Skrulls, he says there limitation as to who can do what with them...that implies limitations on both sides. Like I said, it's probably a situation similar to Wanda and Pietro where both studios can use the characters but Fox cannot refer to their Avengers connection and Marvel cannot refer to their mutant connection.

As an example of what one of the limitations could be: Marvel cannot do anything with the Skrulls related to the Super-Skrull, Negative Zone, or Galactus' heralds, and Fox cannot do anything with the Skrulls related to things like Nova or other exclusive cosmic elements owned by Marvel.

 

[Mr. Dent]

Hey You Guys interviewed Feige at The Avengers premiere and he spoke a bit more about the Skrulls (and the Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver) starting at the 2:05 mark.

[YT]O2nEz-AXmig[/YT]

Thanks for posting this, he says exactly what I thought he meant in the quote Poni posted. He's saying that the Skrulls are in a grey or "unique", as he puts it, area similar to Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. If this doesn't prove it then I don't know what else it will take to make Poni believe me.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I have read and seen interviews in which Feige says that Marvel owns and can use the Skrulls, though Fox own Super-Skrull outright due to his ties to the Fantastic Four. They had considered the Skrulls as Loki's army, but Whedon and Feige knocked that down because shape-shifting aliens would have been too confusing

Yes, he did say that. Years ago. 2009 to be exact:

http://www.chud.com/20263/comic-con-09-will-the-avengers-battle-the-skrulls/

Since then things have obviously changed. More than likely after Disney bought Marvel and the contracts for ALL the characters had to be reorganized it was realized that MS didn't own the Skrulls like they thought they did.

Bottom line: Marvel Studios does not own the Skrulls as per the most recent interviews with Kevin Feige.

Until he or someone else in the know says something to counter that, that is the most accurate and relevant information on the topic.

 

[Poni_Boy]

You're taking the yes too literally.

I have no idea what that means. 10 years of being in and out of court rooms and I've never heard anyone try to convince me that there is another way to take the work "yes" to mean anything except "yes"

How exactly do you take "yes" too literally? I really would love to know

 

[Mr. Dent]

^ I explained what I meant in the post. Read it and don't be snarky please.

Also, okay, after listening to that interview it sounds like Marvel can use certain elements of the Skrulls like their shape-shifting ability and maybe (this is me speculating) even the basic structure of their empire and history, but they can't actually use the name 'Skrulls', as Feige specifically states Marvel chose the name 'Chitauri' "because of that (referring to the contractual situation)" on top of not wanting to bog the movie down in continuity heavy aliens like the Skrull and Kree.

So, Marvel does indeed own elements of the Skrulls but they can't actually refer to them by name at the very least. Which means I am right about what he meant in that interview you posted Poni.

 

[Mr. Dent]

Yes, he did say that. Years ago. 2009 to be exact:

http://www.chud.com/20263/comic-con-09-will-the-avengers-battle-the-skrulls/

Since then things have obviously changed. More than likely after Disney bought Marvel and the contracts for ALL the characters had to be reorganized it was realized that MS didn't own the Skrulls like they thought they did.

Bottom line: Marvel Studios does not own the Skrulls as per the most recent interviews with Kevin Feige.

Until he or someone else in the know says something to counter that, that is the most accurate and relevant information on the topic.

You didn't even watch the video he posted did you.

 

[SuperSAINT]

FYI The LR guy deleted all his Momoa/Drax tweets from today

It wouldn't surprise me if the real El Mayimbe has been kidnapped and is being held hostage whilst this new guy has hacked his account going off about being an insurgent etc.

I kind've preferred him when he just surfaced with a scoop every 3 or 4 months or so.

 

[Xeno]

Yes, he did say that. Years ago. 2009 to be exact:

http://www.chud.com/20263/comic-con-09-will-the-avengers-battle-the-skrulls/

Since then things have obviously changed. More than likely after Disney bought Marvel and the contracts for ALL the characters had to be reorganized it was realized that MS didn't own the Skrulls like they thought they did.

Bottom line: Marvel Studios does not own the Skrulls as per the most recent interviews with Kevin Feige.

Until he or someone else in the know says something to counter that, that is the most accurate and relevant information on the topic.

Did you not notice that the two interviews I posted were from April and May of 2012? That makes them much more recent than that Chud interview, which I also knew about. Feige was asked at The Avengers' UK premiere about Marvel's right to use the Skrulls and he said that the could have used them instead of the Chitauri, but didn't because it would have unnecessarily complicated the movie.


The real bottom line is that Marvel does have the right to use the Skrulls, but they must do it in a way that does not conflict with Fox's rights under its Fantastic Four contract. Feige clearly stated that they chose not to use them in TA solely because of the movie's plot, not because of concerns about the deal with Fox. Quoting IFC again:

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

http://www.ifc.com/fix/2012/05/kevin-feige-captain-america-2-the-skrulls-the-avengers


It really doesn't get any clearer than that. All you need to do is actually read the quote and/or watch the Hey You Guys video to understand this point.

 

[Xeno]

It wouldn't surprise me if the real El Mayimbe has been kidnapped and is being held hostage whilst this new guy has hacked his account going off about being an insurgent etc.

I kind've preferred him when he just surfaced with a scoop every 3 or 4 months or so.

When I read this the first thing that popped into my mind was that scene in Blazing Saddles where Sheriff Bart held a gun to his own head and kidnapped himself to escape a lynching. I could totally see El Maybe taking himself hostage to elude the "cool kids" coming after him with virtual torches and pitchforks.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Did you not notice that the two interviews I posted were from April and May of 2012? That makes them much more recent than that Chud interview, which I also knew about. Feige was asked at The Avengers' UK premiere about Marvel's right to use the Skrulls and he said that the could have used them instead of the Chitauri, but didn't because it would have unnecessarily complicated the movie.


The real bottom line is that Marvel does have the right to use the Skrulls, but they must do it in a way that does not conflict with Fox's rights under its Fantastic Four contract. Feige clearly stated that they chose not to use them in TA solely because of the movie's plot, not because of concerns about the deal with Fox. Quoting IFC again:

EDIT: This interview you link to is not an original interview. It sources back to CHUD. And they missed pulling the "Yes" part of the quote for some reason


http://www.ifc.com/fix/2012/05/kevin-feige-captain-america-2-the-skrulls-the-avengers


It really doesn't get any clearer than that. All you need to do is actually read the quote and/or watch the Hey You Guys video to understand this point.

And I could easily believe all of that, except for the fact that in May 2012 Feige was asked:

And the Skrulls are currently occupied outside of the Marvel Studios universe, correct?

To which he answered:

Yes


http://www.chud.com/92209/interview-kevin-feige-the-avengers/

How can it be more clear than that?

Honestly, how can it? The rest of the mumbo jumbo doesn't negate that answer.


It's like someone asking me "Do you have pants on?" and I say "Yes, but technically they aren't pants they're pantaloons and I wear them with a garter belt but don't tell anyone"

The answer was yes. That's as simple and straightforward as it gets.


Now if you can find an interview were he negates that affirmation it changes things.

 

[Xeno]

And I could easily believe all of that, except for the fact that in May 2012 Feige was asked:

And the Skrulls are currently occupied outside of the Marvel Studios universe, correct?

To which he answered:

Yes


http://www.chud.com/92209/interview-kevin-feige-the-avengers/

How can it be more clear than that?

Honestly, how can it? The rest of the mumbo jumbo doesn't negate that answer.


It's like someone asking me "Do you have pants on?" and I say "Yes, but technically they aren't pants they're pantaloons and I wear them with a garter belt but don't tell anyone"

The answer was yes. That's as simple and straightforward as it gets.


Now if you can find an interview were he negates that affirmation it changes things.

I have to question whether you actually understand what Feige said, both to Chud and to HYG. You ignored everything he said after "Yes," which means you completely skipped over the real substance of his reply. Feige wasn't only saying, "Yes, they're occupied outside of Marvel," as you contend.

Josh: And the Skrulls are currently occupied outside of the Marvel Studios universe, correct?

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.

There it is in bold, red italics: Marvel did not choose the Chitauri over the Skrulls because of a conflict with Fox over the rights. They could have used the Skrulls had they chosen to, with some limitations. The reason Whedon decided on the Chitauri was because he did not want to use shapeshifters, which would unnecessarily complicate things. Feige reiterated that in the HYG video interview, starting at the 2:05 mark with a discussion of Wanda & Pietro that leads into the Skrull rights situation.

[YT]O2nEz-AXmig[/YT]

 

[Poni_Boy]

I have to question whether you actually understand what Feige said, both to Chud and to HYG. You ignored everything he said after "Yes,"

No I didn't. But nothing he said after saying Yes changes that Yes.

If he said "Yes [the Skrulls are at Fox] but we are allowed to use them." that;s different. But he didn't say that. He didn't say anything definitive like that. The rest of the sentence is trivial because it's spin and up to all types of interpretation.

That's what you're not understanding. You're throwing the definitive confirmation and the ANSWER to the question out the window so you can try and interpret the rest of a sentence that doesn't offer any real info about the future of those characters.

Why? Why doesn't his "Yes" matter as the answer to the question? That's what I'd like to know