The Avengers The Avengers: News and Speculation - Part 27A sub-se - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 51

[Endeavor]

Every new detail that I get about Wright's plans for Ant-Man make me happier the project hasn't gone forward... Let's hope he never gets to do that movie he's been planning.

 

[Dr. Sid Jawtug]

If anyone's interested, this is me on The Avengers buzz and speculation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Iv0...DvjVQa1PpcFMBC3EPd1thhnK9KW_5w8a-LeMd-qNJWPY=


And yes, the rights ran out on the original Cap Marvel from DC, so that's why Marvel scooped up the name.

I'd really like it if Ms. Marvel was in this. I love her as a character and it's one of the few Marvel heroines who's not NECESSARILY connected to another big-name hero. (Yes, there is Cap Marvel... I said BIG name.) Is it confirmed? Where? And I wouldn't mind if she was renamed Cap Marvel either.

Seems like a nerd impersonating different nerds to talk about nerd stuff.
I like.

 

[kedrell]

For those who say Ant-Man(and by that Wasp as well) can't be done, they're forgetting that the same exact things were said about Thor & Captain America. And I mean done fairly faithfully as they were. A good movie can come from anywhere, it's just how you go about it ie. the execution.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Every new detail that I get about Wright's plans for Ant-Man make me happier the project hasn't gone forward... Let's hope he never gets to do that movie he's been planning.

Wright's stock with MS went down after Scott Pilgrim. You could visually see Kevin Feige distancing himself from the guy immediately after the SDCC screening. They can say whatever they want publicly to save face, but the writing's on the wall about that project.

 

[Supermanreturns]

Marvel, to me, was wrong scrapping a movie this year.

I remember they have announced Runaways for 2012 but they scrapped the movie to do only Avengers csad.

They must make three movies at years, maybe it will help. 2 big movies and 1 with a minor budget. Examples:

2013: Iron man 3, Thor 2, Runaways
2014: Cap America 2, Doc Strange, Ant-Man

 

[metaphysician]

That doesn't make sense, though. Marvel Comics' Captain Marvel has only been around since the late 1960's with DC's Captain Marvel (purchased from Fawcett) was introduced in 1940. If the trademark is for the comic book use that's fine, but DC can surely make other mediums with the character while utilizing the CM moniker.

EDIT: Honestly it's not like I want to see CM/Shazam! anywhere on the big or small screen. He's a horribly dated character. Marvel's CM though, yes please.

You're correct, except for one hitch: DC didn't *use* the Captain Marvel name and trademark for a long enough period that they lost it to Marvel. Now, DC can have a *character* named "Captain Marvel", still. Trademark doesn't cover specific characters. What they can't do is use the name in the marketing.

 

[Raiden]

Can't confirm it, nobody announced it (and it's not like they ever do). Let's just call it stuck in Developmental Hell. Like that Lord of the Rings movie starring the Beatles

If Wright's proposal for the Ant-Man movie is indeed set in the 60's, then I hope it will stay in the purgatory indefinitely because one of the reasons why I want to see Henry Pym on the big screen is so he and his wife Janet can appear in a sequel for The Avengers in the future. Putting them in the 60's will basically remove them from MCU, unless they pull a Capt. America and get deep-freezed until SHIELD thaws them out in the modern times.

 

[Poni_Boy]

For those who say Ant-Man(and by that Wasp as well) can't be done forget that they said the same exact things about Thor & Captain America. And I mean done fairly faithfully as they were. A good movie can come from anywhere, it's just how you go about it ie. the execution.

While I can see where you're going in regards to execution, you lost me after you tried to parallel Captain America and Thor's movie potential with Ant-Man and Wasp

 

[Endeavor]

For those who say Ant-Man(and by that Wasp as well) can't be done, they're forgetting that the same exact things were said about Thor & Captain America. And I mean done fairly faithfully as they were. A good movie can come from anywhere, it's just how you go about it ie. the execution.

I agree.

Making proclamations how any given property can't be done right, or won't appeal to the general audience because of ABC, simply shows a lack of imagination.
Just because you can't think of a way that it can be done well is not an affirmation that it's impossible.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Marvel, to me, was wrong scrapping a movie this year.

I remember they have announced Runaways for 2012 but they scrapped the movie to do only Avengers csad.

They must make three movies at years, maybe it will help. 2 big movies and 1 with a minor budget. Examples:

2013: Iron man 3, Thor 2, Runaways
2014: Cap America 2, Doc Strange, Ant-Man

I fail to see the logic in any of this, especially that first point. You expect Marvel to compete with themselves on the movie they've spent 8 years building up to?

And where are they going to get the money to do three movies a year when they barely, BARELY, had enough for two last year?

 

[Endeavor]

While I can see where you're going in regards to execution, you lost me after you tried to parallel Captain America and Thor's movie potential with Ant-Man and Wasp

What about Blade? It doesn't get more obscure than him, yet they created a whole franchise around him.

 

[Poni_Boy]

You're correct, except for one hitch: DC didn't *use* the Captain Marvel name and trademark for a long enough period that they lost it to Marvel. Now, DC can have a *character* named "Captain Marvel", still. Trademark doesn't cover specific characters. What they can't do is use the name in the marketing.

Ah, so Marvel capitalized on a legal loophole. Now it makes sense

 

[metaphysician]

Ah, so Marvel capitalized on a legal loophole. Now it makes sense

I wouldn't really call it a "loophole." DC didn't bother to use a character or trademark; why should they be able to keep it?

Trademark specifically has to do with protecting marketing imagery from being spoofed, and only remains so long as its actually relevant. Its not like copyright where it vests with the IP itself.

 

[Poni_Boy]

What about Blade? It doesn't get more obscure than him, yet they created a whole franchise around him.

It has nothing to do with obscurity. Most iconic movie heroes didn't come from a print medium before they were introduced to audiences on the big screen. Obscurity is a mute point.

I just don't understand how you can compare Ant-Man and Wasp to Captain America and Thor's movie potential because the former are not nearly as interesting, dynamic or marketable as the later. Plus, they are not meant to be solo characters, they are team members in all their incarnatons. That's like comparing DC's The Flash to Cyborg; the later isn't a bad character, but on his own in a movie he'll fail because he wasn't meant to be one his own.

 

[Chewy]

Marvel, to me, was wrong scrapping a movie this year.

I remember they have announced Runaways for 2012 but they scrapped the movie to do only Avengers csad.

They must make three movies at years, maybe it will help. 2 big movies and 1 with a minor budget. Examples:

2013: Iron man 3, Thor 2, Runaways
2014: Cap America 2, Doc Strange, Ant-Man

Oversaturating the market is not a good thing...

More than 2 a year would be a mistake

 

[mara]

It has nothing to do with obscurity. Most iconic movie heroes didn't come from a print medium before they were introduced to audiences on the big screen. Obscurity is a mute point.

I just don't understand how you can compare Ant-Man and Wasp to Captain America and Thor's movie potential because the former are not nearly as interesting, dynamic or marketable as the later. Plus, they are not meant to be solo characters, they are team members in all their incarnatons. That's like comparing DC's The Flash to Cyborg; the later isn't a bad character, but on his own in a movie he'll fail because he wasn't meant to be one his own.

Well said, excellent. Could not agree more.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I wouldn't really call it a "loophole." DC didn't bother to use a character or trademark; why should they be able to keep it?

Trademark specifically has to do with protecting marketing imagery from being spoofed, and only remains so long as its actually relevant. Its not like copyright where it vests with the IP itself.

Just did a bit of research, it appears that DC did not own the Captain Marvel trademark at all. Marvel trademarked the character in 1965 before plans to use the name materialized. Fawcett owned the character but never trademarked the name so when DC purchased Captain Marvel, along with Green Arrow and others, they did so knowing Marvel owned a trademark.

 

[Chewy]

I think the only other Avengers who have similar potential to the big three in terms of solo franchises are Black Panther and Cap/Ms Marvel

 

[Endeavor]

It has nothing to do with obscurity. Most iconic movie heroes didn't come from a print medium before they were introduced to audiences on the big screen. Obscurity is a mute point.

I just don't understand how you can compare Ant-Man and Wasp to Captain America and Thor's movie potential because the former are not nearly as interesting, dynamic or marketable as the later. Plus, they are not meant to be solo characters, they are team members in all their incarnatons. That's like comparing DC's The Flash to Cyborg; the later isn't a bad character, but on his own in a movie he'll fail because he wasn't meant to be one his own.

I'm sorry Poni but you're arguing a matter of personal taste, which is not a fact.
To you Cap and Thor are more interesting than Pym and Janet, but who's to say that is the case for everybody out there?
For that matter, let's assume you're right and everybody agrees that they're not as important as the other characters mentioned, does that really justify saying that those 2 characters can't be the leads of their own movie, or be the core characters of another movie like Black Panther for example (as someone else in this forum suggested earlier)? No.
Before Blade was made I thought he was boring. "A 2-bit Spider-Man supporting character? Why make a movie on him? Make one about Man-Wolf instead, to me he's much more interesting". Should that have been a good enough reason to cancel the plans to create a Blade movie?

 

[Raiden]

I fail to see the logic in any of this, especially that first point. You expect Marvel to compete with themselves on the movie they've spent 8 years building up to?

And where are they going to get the money to do three movies a year when they barely, BARELY, had enough for two last year?

The way I see it is that, Marvel used the budget big enough for two movies to use on The Avengers, which is why TA is rumored to have costed around 200 - 250 mil. I think while it might be nice to see two MS movies this year, I'd much rather have them focus 100% of their resources on TA to ensure that it will be the biggest and most successful movie they've ever done. The expectation for this movie is through the roof, and a failure to deliver the goods after many years of build-up through the MCU will be catastrophic.

 

[kedrell]

While I can see where you're going in regards to execution, you lost me after you tried to parallel Captain America and Thor's movie potential with Ant-Man and Wasp

I didn't say they were in the same league as Thor & Cap, just that they're in the same boat as those two were before their movies hit. Few thought they'd work. An Ant-Man/Wasp movie wouldn't need to be as big as the other Avengers films. But they could easily be Blade-level successful if not more and as long as they are profitable and the budget's are kept reasonable then that would be A-OK with me. Not every superhero movie needs to be gigantic with the WW box office.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I'm sorry Poni but you're arguing a matter of personal taste, which is not a fact.
To you Cap and Thor are more interesting than Pym and Janet, but who's to say that is the case for everybody out there?
For that matter, let's assume you're right and everybody agrees that they're not as important as the other characters mentioned, does that really justify saying that those 2 characters can't be the leads of their own movie, or be the core characters of another movie like Black Panther for example (as someone else in this forum suggester earlier)? No.
Before Blade was made I thought he was boring. "A 2-bit Spider-Man supporting character? Why make a movie on him? Make one about Man-Wolf instead, to me he's much more interesting". Should that have been a good enough reason to cancel the plans to create a Blade movie?

No I'm not arguing taste, or preference, at all. Hank Pym is in my top 5 Marvel characters thanks to Dan Slott revisiting him a few years back.

Blade's pre-movie popularity had nothing to do with obscurity. As I stated before, obscurity is irrelevant to cinematic success. He's a decent and interesting character that got the bloody R-rated movie he needed. And Wesley Snipes kicking ass.

If I were to believe what you are stating then that would mean every comic character is prepped and ready to be made into a cinematic lead with the right crew behind it. Yeah, ok.

 

[Raiden]

I'm sorry Poni but you're arguing a matter of personal taste, which is not a fact.
To you Cap and Thor are more interesting than Pym and Janet, but who's to say that is the case for everybody out there?
For that matter, let's assume you're right and everybody agrees that they're not as important as the other characters mentioned, does that really justify saying that those 2 characters can't be the leads of their own movie, or be the core characters of another movie like Black Panther for example (as someone else in this forum suggester earlier)? No.
Before Blade was made I thought he was boring. "A 2-bit Spider-Man supporting character? Why make a movie on him? Make one about Man-Wolf instead, to me he's much more interesting". Should that have been a good enough reason to cancel the plans to create a Blade movie?

Well, Blade wasn't made by Marvel, but was licensed to New Line Cinema and the movies were made with relatively low budget and even lower expectations. The fact that it spawned a trilogy was probably a surprise to everyone, including Marvel, but the subsequent attempts to cash in on Blade's new-found popularity never really panned out, including a Spike TV show and a newly-launched comic series. Plus the landscape for superhero movies has changed drastically between the time when Blade premiered to right now, so I think your comparison between Blade and Ant-Man isn't valid.

 

[Poni_Boy]

The way I see it is that, Marvel used the budget big enough for two movies to use on The Avengers, which is why TA is rumored to have costed around 200 - 250 mil. I think while it might be nice to see two MS movies this year, I'd much rather have them focus 100% of their resources on TA to ensure that it will be the biggest and most successful movie they've ever done. The expectation for this movie is through the roof, and a failure to deliver the goods after many years of build-up through the MCU will be catastrophic.

Marvel Studios has a production budget (not to include marketing or administrative cost) of $300 million per year. It was in last year's stockholder analysis, and agreed upon for this year as well.

This is where Disney comes into play. Now MS can spend $300 mil per year on actually making the movies instead of spending money on peripheral expenses.

 

[Hurm...]

If anyone's interested, this is me on The Avengers buzz and speculation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Iv0...DvjVQa1PpcFMBC3EPd1thhnK9KW_5w8a-LeMd-qNJWPY=


And yes, the rights ran out on the original Cap Marvel from DC, so that's why Marvel scooped up the name.

I'd really like it if Ms. Marvel was in this. I love her as a character and it's one of the few Marvel heroines who's not NECESSARILY connected to another big-name hero. (Yes, there is Cap Marvel... I said BIG name.) Is it confirmed? Where? And I wouldn't mind if she was renamed Cap Marvel either.

Very...normal.