Iron Man 2 Sam Rockwell is Justin Hammer

[kedrell]

^I highly doubt that'll happen, Figs.

 

[Kirk 1701]

and abomination.

i wonder when fox is gonna give up their corresponding movie rights back to marvel

I do not know if my information is correct, but I heard a couple of years back that Sony has the rights to the Spider-Man movie frachise for the next eleven years. That would be 2020. Maybe than the rights would revert back to Marvel, but eleven years is a very long time.

I don't think Fox is gone to give up their corresponding movie rights back to Mavrel. Remember, X-Men: The Last Stand made over $400M in worldwide gross revenue. It's a cash cow. Don't expect Fox to give anything back for nothing. If Marvel Comics want the rights back, they can offer Fox a great heap of money. I don't think they have that kind of money.

 

[kedrell]

^Not until more of their films hit "Iron Man status". I personally hope Wolverine makes less than 1/2 of what X3 made and thus ends up losing money for FOX. They'll stop making them then, just like they did with the DD & FF franchises.

 

[Kirk 1701]

^Not until more of their films hit "Iron Man status". I personally hope Wolverine makes less than 1/2 of what X3 made and thus ends up losing money for FOX. They'll stop making them then, just like they did with the DD & FF franchises.

That remains to be seen with X-Men Orgins: Wolverine. Next to Spider-Man, I think Wolverine is as or more popular than other Marvel characters. I do plan on seeing X-Men Orgins: Wolverine, since it is a spin-off movie of the X-Men movie franchise. I do think the movie will make at least $100M in U.S.A. sales or close to it. We'll see what happens on May first.

 

[xisaacx]

Meh from all his answers, he doesn't seem to INTO it. I mean does he know anything about the character.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

^Not until more of their films hit "Iron Man status". I personally hope Wolverine makes less than 1/2 of what X3 made and thus ends up losing money for FOX. They'll stop making them then, just like they did with the DD & FF franchises.

It's a shame but I don't see Fox ever giving up the rights to these comic book properties. There are too many characters too exploit, especially in the X-Men world. And now there are rumblings of a DD and FF reboot. As far as it was explained to me in the Wolverine board, so long as Fox has a movie in the pipleline every 5 years with a character from those franchises, then they are allowed to retain the rights. So, theoretically, Fox can hold these rights until the end of time. It's unfortunate that Marvel's backs was so up against the wall when they made this deal(being in bankruptcy).

 

[kedrell]

If they can't turn a profit from them, why would they keep making the films? If Marvel Studios is able to score big enough with their proposed films, maybe they can tempt studios like FOX & Sony to cash-out with a guaranteed profit. Eh, it's a hope. Marvel'd have to pay like $500M for the X-Men, $700M for Spidey, $300M for the FF, $100M for DD, $50M for GR, etc. It'd cost a couple billion $.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

^Because these films will ALWAYS turn a profit. That's a fact. Don't just look at BO gross, but look at DVD sales and especially TV deals which make a lot of money for these studios. Fox and Sony is not going to settle for a deal when they know over the very long run, they could make that same money and thensome.

 

[kedrell]

^Because these films will ALWAYS turn a profit. That's a fact. Don't just look at BO gross, but look at DVD sales and especially TV deals which make a lot of money for these studios. Fox and Sony is not going to settle for a deal when they know over the very long run, they could make that same money and thensome.

Then why did Universal let Hulk go? These films can become more trouble than their worth to studios. Otherwise why the years of drought after B&R?

 

[FlawlessVictory]

^Batman is not applicable in this case because WB does not face the same pressure of HAVING to develop a movie every five years. Plus, they already know the potential of the character on film as evidenced with the huge success of the 89 film and a hit with the 95 film. So they have the luxury of waiting any amount of time if they want, if one film doesn't up live up to their expectations, because they know if done correctly, the success will come, the proof was there.

As for Hulk, that's a good question. Perhaps the studio thought that more than 5 years was needed to properly reboot the character and have a really big payday. In the end, they would have still turned a profit, but like you mentioned, it probably wasn't worth it (not a big enough of a profit) to put the effort back into the character without having a suitable enough of a time gap.

Perhaps this could happen with the DD and F4 properties. I really hope so. But with X-Men, I just don't see it. The proof is there that the franchise can be incredibly successful, not lukewarm or a modest hit but an actual blockbuster. Once that level of success is reached with a franchise, I have trouble believing the studio would have any kinds of plans of dealing it off in the future. Especially with the amount of characters in the X-Men universe and all the different stories that can be told, I can't see that well going dry for them. And they always have the success of the 3 X-Men films to fall back on and say to themselves that the success was reached before, surely it can be reached again.

 

[FaT_tONle]

X-Men is untouchable... FF and DD are not. But I think Fox will reboot at least one of those anyway. As far as the endless explotation of X-Men to come back to that for a second... we'll have to wait and see. This could be it for Jackman. He's been their poster boy. Without him all bets are off. No doubt there are other characters to exploit. But it's no guarantee. Still, if Fox's deal includes one spinoff/X-Men related film every five years then Marvel will never get it back... which is sad.

 

[Kirk 1701]

X-Men is untouchable... FF and DD are not. But I think Fox will reboot at least one of those anyway. As far as the endless explotation of X-Men to come back to that for a second... we'll have to wait and see. This could be it for Jackman. He's been their poster boy. Without him all bets are off. No doubt there are other characters to exploit. But it's no guarantee. Still, if Fox's deal includes one spinoff/X-Men related film every five years then Marvel will never get it back... which is sad.

According to Director Gavin Hood, there could be a sequel to X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which may be set in Japan.

 

[kedrell]

So Marvel gave them an open-ended time for the film rights? Even if it was something like 20-30 years that would've been better in the long run. I just have a hard time buying Marvel put no strings in with the X-Men or Spider-Man deals. I always heard it was every 3 years and they didn't just have to have something in the pipeline(which may or may not actually surface) but an actual theatrical release every 3 years.

 

[Figs]

So Marvel gave them an open-ended time for the film rights? Even if it was something like 20-30 years that would've been better in the long run. I just have a hard time buying Marvel put no strings in with the X-Men or Spider-Man deals. I always heard it was every 3 years and they didn't just have to have something in the pipeline(which may or may not actually surface) but an actual theatrical release every 3 years.

I believe it is in fact every 5 years.

Technically if it were every 3 or 4 years, Marvel would be getting the rights back to Daredevil and Elektra this year I think.

The reason they didn't put any strings in for those other deals was because they were going bankrupt and had to bow down to the allmighty $$$$$.

 

[Chewy]

There's some video of Rockwell here. He's got short hair and some facial hair
http://www.jfxonline.com/video/2009/04/07/video-iron-man-2/

 

[Chewy]

Here's a YouTube embed of that same video:

And some screengrabs of Rockwell from it:

 

[kedrell]

Hmm. the theory of a younger Hammer who's a contemporary of Tony Stark seems to be gaining creedence with this. Still not absolutely a "for sure" thing yet, though.

 

[Octoberist]

Rockwell should wear the MC HAMMER pants.

 

[Chris B]

I wonder what his true look for the film is the one from those set pics or the one picture Favreau posted on his Twitter?

 

[Chewy]

The one from Favs' Twitter was just a pic of Rockwell chilling out in Favs' office during rehearsals - I think it's safe to say he'll look like he does in those set pics.

 

[Chris B]

That would make sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

The one from Favs' Twitter was just a pic of Rockwell chilling out in Favs' office during rehearsals - I think it's safe to say he'll look like he does in those set pics.

I second that.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Hmm. Thought he would look like that from his office in the film.

Oh, well doesn't matter. I think Rockwell will be great. I just wanna see him and RBJ go at it dialogue wise.

 

[Venomfan]

well it definitely looks like their going the evil twin route. i don't understand it, do people think its some clever new idea that improvies the characters to change them into an evil opposite? is there suddenly some new and better dynamic there now then keeping them the way they are in the comics?

 

[Chewy]

Is it really that big of a deal? He was 80-ish, they made him 40-ish.