The Avengers The Avengers: News and Speculation - Part 27A sub-se - Part 7

[marvel_freshman]

Regarding Abomination, I'm really hoping they're introducing The Vault in the MCU, at some point in the franchise having a breakout.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

That would be awesome.

 

[cherokeesam]

As much as I hate the Skrull idea ..... I was looking more at Coulson and his facial structure and he started looking more and more like one. His chin in particular stood out.

Alas, we know that the whole point of Coulson's character is not just to tie the movies together, but because it allows the writers to do as they please with him since he has no back story in the comics.

I like this idea.
I don't trust Coulson....he's a shifty-eyed Skrull if I ever saw one.


I also think they ought to make Johann von Schmidt a Skrull, too.
You know:
....Red Skrull.
(SERIOUSLY, WHY HAS NO ONE CREATED THIS CHARACTER YET, MARVEL...??? RED SKRULL --- GET ON IT, BENDIS)

 

[marvel_freshman]

I like this idea.
I don't trust Coulson....he's a shifty-eyed Skrull if I ever saw one.


I also think they ought to make Johann von Schmidt a Skrull, too.
You know:
....Red Skrull.
(SERIOUSLY, WHY HAS NO ONE CREATED THIS CHARACTER YET, MARVEL...??? RED SKRULL --- GET ON IT, BENDIS)

Coulson is the good guy folks

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Coulson is the good guy folks

 

[WildcatNC]

Son of Coul is beyond good and bad. He is epic.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

because their names appeared on the computer in X2....they couldnt do that if they didnt have the rights

that's arguable. and actually means nothing. Being allowed to show something in print usually has different clauses than having an actual physical character. Sort of like how Sony used "doctor strange" in a line by JJJ... when sony doesnt own the character, also similar to how in spider-man aunt may also said "you're not "superman" you know". Same rules can apply.

 

[Steve Holt]

that's arguable. and actually means nothing. Being allowed to show something in print usually has different clauses than having an actual physical character. Sort of like how Sony used "doctor strange" in a line by JJJ... when sony doesnt own the character, also similar to how in spider-man aunt may also said "you're not "superman" you know". Same rules can apply.

they did at that point if i recall

 

[Dark Raven]

that's arguable. and actually means nothing. Being allowed to show something in print usually has different clauses than having an actual physical character. Sort of like how Sony used "doctor strange" in a line by JJJ... when sony doesnt own the character, also similar to how in spider-man aunt may also said "you're not "superman" you know". Same rules can apply.

The mention of Superman was just a passing reference not even necessarily intended as if he were another hero in the same universe (and let's not get into this whole Marvel and DC are in different universes etc). Superman was mentioned as a cultural reference in the same way that he is probably mentioned countless times in non-superhero movies or tv shows. I doubt that anyone would've needed to get any kind of permission or to check who owns the rights to Superman.

It's like that episode of Friends where Phoebe is talking about Spider-Man and she the following dialogue occurs:

Phoebe: Hey! Why isn't it "Spidermun?" Ya know, like Goldman, or Silverman?
Chandler: It's not his last name.
Phoebe: It isn't?
Chandler: No. It's not like... like "Phil Spidermun". He's a spider-man. You know, like, uh, like Goldman is a last name, but there's no Gold-Man.
Phoebe: Oh, okay! There should be a "Gold-Man!"



I doubt WB would've thought: "hey, Spider-Man isn't owned by WB - I wonder if we can use him and will people think Spider-Man inhabits the same universe as the cast from Friends?"

 

[BigThor]

Regarding Abomination, I'm really hoping they're introducing The Vault in the MCU, at some point in the franchise having a breakout.

Oh hell yeah, that would be absolutely amazing.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Yeah, you don't need to pay royalties or permission to mention a character from something, in passing, as a cultural reference. However, referencing a character as a real person, who exists within the films universe is something completely different.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Regarding Abomination, I'm really hoping they're introducing The Vault in the MCU, at some point in the franchise having a breakout.

Yeah, I've said the same in past threads ever since TIH - I wanted to see where they took Blonsky and it followed that logically it would have to be a bespoke prison specifically equipped to handle the incarceration of super-powered beings.

Now if they're going to introduce such a facility, it would be such a waste not to just simply call it the Vault as a nod to the fans.

 

[Doctor Jones]

If they add Blonsky, that's a whole other CG character they'll have to spend money on. Even if it's for five seconds.

 

[Brian Braddock]

True, although to be fair, I dont necessarilly want to see Blonsky per se, I just want to see the facility used by in the Marvel cinematic universe to incarerate the super villains.

Would I be right in thinking that so far, the closest we've got is in the Fox X-Men movies? (Magneto's cell in the first two movies and the mobile prison in The Last Stand).

Seems to me that Marvel [proper] have yet to show us their versions.

 

[Quasimod0]

A breakout movie would cost a heck of alot of money.

 

[marcvader]

I'm sure they can use the Abom models from TIH. It wouldn't have to be made from scratch especially if its a quick pan and you see him subdued in a cell. What would be an even better Easter egg would be Ultron guards . Imagine that

 

[Quasimod0]

I'd get chills

 

[Marvel Spider]

I'm sure they can use the Abom models from TIH. It wouldn't have to be made from scratch especially if its a quick pan and you see him subdued in a cell. What would be an even better Easter egg would be Ultron guards . Imagine that

That would be so awesome.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Is Blonksy even necessarily always in Abom form? He could revert back to Blonksy like Banner does.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I'm sure they can use the Abom models from TIH. It wouldn't have to be made from scratch especially if its a quick pan and you see him subdued in a cell. What would be an even better Easter egg would be Ultron guards . Imagine that

That would be..incredible.

 

[Crimson King]

Is Blonksy even necessarily always in Abom form? He could revert back to Blonksy like Banner does.

Can he go back? I always thought his transformation was permanent, but that's just a guess.

 

[marcvader]

I think its permanent as well.

 

[wobbly]

Is Blonksy even necessarily always in Abom form? He could revert back to Blonksy like Banner does.

In the books he cannot turn back to human form (Banner is one the few exposed to Gamma Radiation who can change back and forth).

With Movie Blonksy they could do it either way, but as he got his power by alternate means (Unstable SS serum plus Banners blood, finished off with the 'Gamma Pulse') I don't see any reason to change him being stuck as a hideous monster (he asked for it big time after all).

 

[Ultra Ham]

I'm sure they can use the Abom models from TIH. It wouldn't have to be made from scratch especially if its a quick pan and you see him subdued in a cell. What would be an even better Easter egg would be Ultron guards . Imagine that

I would squeal with delight.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Yeah, I know he can't change back in the comics but who knows for the movie, right? If they really wanted to use him but they REALLY couldn't afford to have him as cgi Abom the whole time, it would be a feasible concession to make.