Mark Millar To Consult On FOX's MARVEL ADAPTATIONS

[Hawkingbird]

The story itself was good, I just thought all the characters were badly written, apart from maybe a few. What I did like was post-Civil War.

 

[def28]

Yeah I always liked the concept of Civil War. Theres alot wrong with it but I never had as many problems as others point out. Its def flawed.

We'll never see a Sentinel in an X movie, same as we won't get a true cosmic-scale adventure in FF, Millar or no Millar. Those things cost money that Fox isn't willing to spend.

We will see them in the next X Film.

 

[Dr Tactics]

We will see them in the next X Film.

Budget pending we'll sew Sentinels in DOFP. Keep in mind they may lose money before they make money (maybe). X-Men vs the Hobbit factor

 

[YoungPrime]

Well no matter how much one will yell and scream to the rights to either revert or for Marvel to buy back the characters, a shared universe is the best you'll get because within that universe (MCU) will there be confidence that the characters will be translated to film respectfully. Fox nor Sony are gonna give away money and Marvel is money. So a shared universe IMO should be looked upon as a glass half full as opposed to a glass half empty. The glass has been dry for Fox so there's nowhere to go but up at this point. How far up remains to be seen.

I'm trying to think of this from some what of a business perspective.

You say that Fox can only go up from here but I disagree. I will say that none of Fox's comic films are as bad as Ghost Rider 1, 2 or the last Punisher. So there is a bar they could still sink to since Electra wasn't as bad as Catwoman was. Still most FOX comic portrayals aren't great.

So if the only part of the glass that would be "full" is Marvels side of a FOX-men crossover then Marvel's better off doing films on the own as the have been. Why get greedy by adding Fox poor character portrayals in the mix while knowing in the back of your head that you could've made them better?

Fox and Sony may not be willing to hand over those franchises any time soon but I don't see the logic in Marvel/Disney helping those studios to solidify the stay of those lost characters either. As a comic book fan I'm just not that desperate to see a crossover in that fashion anyway.

So Marvel should just keep doing what they're doing with Phase 2 and let Fox fumble about while trying to keep up. Then play ball when it's to their advantage.

I definitely agree with the points you made about how poorly written and produced Fox's Marvel-based films have been. Of all of Fox's efforts, only two were of high quality (X-Men & X2), and that in spite of taking ridiculous liberties with the source material. Fox is doing Marvel movies on the cheap, so we get films in which characters barely utilize their powers in order to minimize budgets. (Has Storm ever flown more than a few feet?) We'll never see a Sentinel in an X movie, same as we won't get a true cosmic-scale adventure in FF, Millar or no Millar. Those things cost money that Fox isn't willing to spend.

Thank you I think I'm slowing losing "Dr Tactics" to the other side.

But that's pretty much it.

The special effect in FC weren't that great with a $160 million budget so do we really think that they'll wow us with Sentinels by adding a extra 10 million to pot?

I speculated that if Fox did add Sentinels it would be significantly limited. Either a small part in the beginning or a quick montage of said time traveler speaking on it in the middle of the film. 95% of the film will be in the past not the future.

So the best that fans can hope for is a half decent Nimrod following said time traveler back in time.

And yes Fox hates dealing with anything that involves space travel. (hell even the last X-files movie didn't have mention extra terrestrials) So F4 will never have a chance while in its present home.

 

[def28]

The special effect in FC weren't that great with a $160 million budget so do we really think that they'll wow us with Sentinels by adding a extra 10 million to pot?

I speculated that if Fox did add Sentinels it would be significantly limited. Either a small part in the beginning or a quick montage of said time traveler speaking on it in the middle of the film. 95% of the film will be in the past not the future.

So the best that fans can hope for is a half decent Nimrod following said time traveler back in time.

FC effects do look ****** at times. Even though it had a decent budget alot of that went to rushing effects on time. DOFP is the first film that wont be rushed. Which means they can make more use of the budget.

I highly doubt we will see a future where Nimrod is the only one running around killing and incarcerating everyone. Thats not gonna work.


Dont know if this has been posted in here.
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/ne...of-future-past-is-x-men-meets-terminator.html

Vaughn is going for a big sci-fi style thing with X-Men: Days of Future Past."
He also teased the plot of the film, calling it "X-Men meets The Terminator".
"You've got robots, you've got time travel, you've got superheroes - it's got everything in one film," he claimed.
He also said that it is "no spoiler on [his] part" to say that the film goes into an apocalyptic future.
"Cost-wise it's going to go up, and ambitious-wise it's gone up," Millar noted. "But Vaughn can handle it.

 

[Dr Tactics]

I'm trying to think of this from some what of a business perspective.

You say that Fox can only go up from here but I disagree. I will say that none of Fox's comic films are as bad as Ghost Rider 1, 2 or the last Punisher. So there is a bar they could still sink to since Electra wasn't as bad as Catwoman was. Still most FOX comic portrayals aren't great.

So if the only part of the glass that would be "full" is Marvels side of a FOX-men crossover then Marvel's better off doing films on the own as the have been. Why get greedy by adding Fox poor character portrayals in the mix while knowing in the back of your head that you could've made them better?

Fox and Sony may not be willing to hand over those franchises any time soon but I don't see the logic in Marvel/Disney helping those studios to solidify the stay of those lost characters either. As a comic book fan I'm just not that desperate to see a crossover in that fashion anyway.

So Marvel should just keep doing what they're doing with Phase 2 and let Fox fumble about while trying to keep up. Then play ball when it's to their advantage.

You missed my point. In "Shared" universe means the current MCU including Marvel Studios current roster. The only way to expand the universe to include Spider-Man, FF and X-Men there has to be a give and take with the studios. Marvel will give more time if they can have access to characters owned by other Studios (Silver Surfer, Galactus, Wolverine) and Fox will benefit by being able to utilize characters they don't own (Black Panther, Namor, Inhumans) to create a "Shared" universe. Get it?

Added: And maybe even co-financing deal since it seems to get a decent FF or X-Men movie and thwart against Fox's typical "bottom budget scratching" aka being Cheap

Thank you I think I'm slowing losing "Dr Tactics" to the other side.

LOL!! You haven't lost me my man, but we have to be more realistic in our results

The special effect in FC weren't that great with a $160 million budget so do we really think that they'll wow us with Sentinels by adding a extra 10 million to pot?

I speculated that if Fox did add Sentinels it would be significantly limited. Either a small part in the beginning or a quick montage of said time traveler speaking on it in the middle of the film. 95% of the film will be in the past not the future.

So the best that fans can hope for is a half decent Nimrod following said time traveler back in time.

And yes Fox hates dealing with anything that involves space travel. (hell even the last X-files movie didn't have mention extra terrestrials) So F4 will never have a chance while in its present home.

We'll it has more to do with cheaping out on the budget more than anything else and thats the core of Fox's problem. As good as XM-FC was it wasn't EPIC in scale. And thats what sells the GA as much as a good story. Take Michael Bay for example. Tranformers franchise storywise? Horrible but its EPIC in scale and the budget is HUGE.. Thats the real key. It becomes more profitable when theres a great script also. Thats when WW BO makes billions with those combinations..

 

[YoungPrime]

You missed my point. In "Shared" universe means the current MCU including Marvel Studios current roster. The only way to expand the universe to include Spider-Man, FF and X-Men there has to be a give and take with the studios. Marvel will give more time if they can have access to characters owned by other Studios (Silver Surfer, Galactus, Wolverine) and Fox will benefit by being able to utilize characters they don't own (Black Panther, Namor, Inhumans) to create a "Shared" universe. Get it?

I understand the point I just don't really like the idea of prolonging Fox hold on these characters.

Fox is the studio that has something to prove to moviegoers. So why should Marvel help Fox with anything short of buying their rights back? The idea of "borrowing" this for that is trivial and counter productive to Marvel's true desire to reclaim all.

So personally I think its rather appalling for FOX to even hint at asking for Marvel's help while knowing what Marvel stands to gain by watching them slowly fail.

LOL!! You haven't lost me my man, but we have to be more realistic in our results

Results to what end? I'm happy with MCU as is. And their last film is proof that hard work pays off. So realistically speaking, what does Marvel have to gain by allowing Fox to creep around in their yard when the ultimate goal would be for them to get their rights back sooner rather than later?

Keep in mind that all this talk about a shared Marvel universe among other studious is nothing more than a wet dream by Millar that could secure his employment at FOX. Marvel already have their plans all mapped out with Phase 2 and the beginning of phase 3 releasing Antman. So it's not like they're in dire straits.

So if Marvel manages to knock one out of the park with "Antman" do you think it would be feasible to allow FOX to toy around with any of the characters they already own?

I'm just trying to look a the bigger picture. Marvel doesn't really need Fox as much as Fox appears to need them.

We'll it has more to do with cheaping out on the budget more than anything else and thats the core of Fox's problem. As good as XM-FC was it wasn't EPIC in scale. And thats what sells the GA as much as a good story. Take Michael Bay for example. Tranformers franchise storywise? Horrible but its EPIC in scale and the budget is HUGE.. Thats the real key. It becomes more profitable when theres a great script also. Thats when WW BO makes billions with those combinations..

As and avid Transformers fan myself, I think Transformers success has more to do with people loving Transformers than they actually hated Bay which is kind of funny since even former actors of the franchise are taking shots at him.

With FOX the Love/Hate percentage might be a little closer. See we may love X-men but we really hate what Fox is doing to it to the point where we wont even go see it.

Plus Fox has 9 Marvel Comicbook films under their belt. Which is still more than everyone else. So using close deadlines as an excuse for crappy results wont fly for me.

 

[Dr Tactics]

I understand the point I just don't really like the idea of prolonging Fox hold on these characters.

Fox is the studio that has something to prove to moviegoers. So why should Marvel help Fox with anything short of buying their rights back? The idea of "borrowing" this for that is trivial and counter productive to Marvel's true desire to reclaim all.

So personally I think its rather appalling for FOX to even hint at asking for Marvel's help while knowing what Marvel stands to gain by watching them slowly fail.

While I think thats true we have to be prepared for the fact that Josh Tranks just may not drop out and they do go full steam ahead with the FF reboot cause remember Marvel gets paid whether they revert or don't so looking at it from a business perspective Marvel will let then do their film.

Results to what end? I'm happy with MCU as is. And their last film is proof that hard work pays off. So realistically speaking, what does Marvel have to gain by allowing Fox to creep around in their yard when the ultimate goal would be for them to get their rights back sooner rather than later?

Galactus, Silver Surfer, Dr Doom, etc would make the storytelling so much better. As I said above that there is a possibility that Fox will come thru with their reboot, possibly get a sub par film and smirches the Marvel great name..

Keep in mind that all this talk about a shared Marvel universe among other studious is nothing more than a wet dream by Millar that could secure his employment at FOX. Marvel already have their plans all mapped out with Phase 2 and the beginning of phase 3 releasing Antman. So it's not like they're in dire straits.

So if Marvel manages to knock one out of the park with "Antman" do you think it would be feasible to allow FOX to toy around with any of the characters they already own?

Millar is smart enough to know that to "knock it out of the park" with the FF he'll need characters owned by Marvel. He's covering his own behind so if the movie fails and can say I told you so

I'm just trying to look a the bigger picture. Marvel doesn't really need Fox as much as Fox appears to need them.

Bingo!!! Say it LOUDER!! LOL!!!

As and avid Transformers fan myself, I think Transformers success has more to do with people loving Transformers than they actually hated Bay which is kind of funny since even former actors of the franchise are taking shots at him.

I agree and disagree. Fans went to watch it but but the GA went due to it being EPIC. Thats why even after the horrible TF2 that TFDOTM still made over a Billion WW and #350 mill Dom,

With FOX the Love/Hate percentage might be a little closer. See we may love X-men but we really hate what Fox is doing to it to the point where we wont even go see it.

Plus Fox has 9 Marvel Comicbook films under their belt. Which is still more than everyone else. So using close deadlines as an excuse for crappy results wont fly for me.

Most really don't care that much to HATE Fox. They see a disappointing film and move on. Then when the sequel comes out they pass. No sweat off their brow. That the struggle Fox has to overcome with their Marvel characters the people will pass on seeing it the first week and either waiting on reviews or skipping it all together and wait to rent it because of the mistrust of the product. And thats why to all the Fox enthusiasts FOX NEEDS MARVEL/DISNEY FROM HERE ON OUT for EPIC FILMS. Unless they're willing to step their game up budget wise which is a huge risk on their bottom line based on their pass mistakes and continuity missteps. They don't want to "John Carter" In that case They'd be better to not waste Marvels time and let them revert but in reality they'll **** around for 2 more years and we as fans will have to wait longer or watch a sub par FF. We've no control over the situation

 

[Shikamaru]

Most really don't care that much to HATE Fox. They see a disappointing film and move on.

Agreed. However, there is ONE Fox movie that is a BIG exception to that.

Dragonball Evolution.

 

[Dr Tactics]

Agreed. However, there is ONE Fox movie that is a BIG exception to that.

Dragonball Evolution.

WHoa!! Very true. I blocked that nightmare out of my mind!!

 

[metaphysician]

*Does* Marvel "get paid", though? My understanding is that the contracts were not even slightly kind to Marvel, what with having been written in the 90s when Marvel was bankrupt.

If Marvel's cut is 5% of the final profit after the Hollywood accountants employed by the other studio have done their job, than it may only just barely be better than nothing.

 

[YoungPrime]

*Does* Marvel "get paid", though? My understanding is that the contracts were not even slightly kind to Marvel, what with having been written in the 90s when Marvel was bankrupt.

If Marvel's cut is 5% of the final profit after the Hollywood accountants employed by the other studio have done their job, than it may only just barely be better than nothing.

Exactly my point.

(go here for the full story)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/05/01/8375925/index.htm

"To date, the company has only licensed its characters; film studios like Fox and Sony actually make the movies - and suck up most of the profit. Marvel generally gets 2 to 10 percent of the profit. It's good money, and the risk is low. But Marvel is weary of seeing other companies walk away with most of the loot from megahits built on its characters."

"The two Spider-Man films have grossed nearly $1.6 billion at the box office; Marvel is estimated to have received just $75 million of that."

"Licensing was mishandled; for instance, the terms negotiated for Marvel's Men in Black characters were so skimpy that when the movie was made in 1997, ultimately generating about $589 million worldwide, Marvel's take was about a million bucks."

"Arad says Marvel made only $25,000 from the first Blade movie, thanks to lousy licensing terms negotiated years earlier by Perelman lawyers."

"Fox, for instance, nearly balked at making the first X-Men film. "They almost didn't buy it as a movie," Arad recalls. "But we told them that if another studio buys it, they're going to look like dorks." Fox bit - and X-Men grossed nearly $300 million globally following its 2000 release."

Marvel's share of DVD sales was minuscule - less than a percentage point in most cases.